ALDI Gardenline Foldable Saw – Product Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Gardenline-Garden-and-Camping-Saw-AALDI Gardenline Foldable Saw
Length approx. 18cm
Carbon steel saw blade with 3-sides ground teeth, ABS handle with TPR grips
Thickness: 1.2mm (Blade)
Price (when available) £ 4.99

I purchased this saw, more or less, to try it out as to how it would perform and not, like often, given this as a review sample. Having used it on both old and green wood, including rather hard cherry, I must say that it performed if not as well then at least almost as well as some rather expensive makes of saws of this kind, at a fraction of the cost.

Gardenline-Garden-and-Camping-Saw-CI would certainly say that this saw is ideal for gardening, pruning, camping, clearing trails, hiking, tree trimming and light coppice work.

Blade safety lock with a safety locking mechanism that double locks, so to speak, as it also locks the blade once on the way down, thus making the closing of the blade safer reducing the risk of closing it on the hand.

Unfortunately, as with all ALDI special buys offers, these saws are always only available now and then and then only as long as stocks last which, at times, may last for a couple of days or a couple of weeks depending on demand.

Obviously, the question is now as to how this saw holds up in sharpness and other things in comparison to other, more expensive ones of brands that I am not going to mention here.

© 2018

Solar power installations suck away the light of the sun

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Solar power installations suck away the light of the sunThe council of the US town of woodland rejected the installation of a small solar array along of Highway 258 by reasoning that those photo-voltaic installations suck away the light of the sun but not only that.

Had it been in Texas I might have understood it better considering that one of the Lone Star State's lawmakers things along the same light as regards to solar and when it comes to wind turbines then, according to him, we have to be really careful as those stop the wind from blowing in the end – as wind is a limited resource – and eventually will stop the Earth from spinning.

But back to Woodland, NC.

Woodland is a sleepy little town nestled in the open spaces of North Carolina. It has 388 inhabitants and between the white farmhouses the Highway 258 snakes along. Along this highway, at the verges, the 21st century was meant to arrive in the form of a solar array. For the inhabitants of the little town a nightmare.

The company – Strata Solar Company – applied to be permitted to install a solar farm along Highway 258 but after protest were raised by the community against those plans the council of Woodland refused to grant permission.

In a town hall meeting residents could voice their objections before council made its decision and enables us a view into this strange way of thinking by many and not just in that community in the USA.

Solar farms as plant killers

A spokesperson for the citizenship called Bobby Mann stated the fear that solar panels would suck up all the energy of the sun. His wife Jane told the audience that she had seen areas where around solar arrays all plants had died because they no longer could get enough sunlight. A former teacher who used to teach science expounded her theory that plants could not longer photosynthesize because there would not be enough sun.

Furthermore, she said, the clusters of cancers in the area could be not coincidence. No one could tell that solar panels were not causing cancer. They did, she stated.

Others claimed that properties near solar arrays would become worthless and would turn the place into a ghost town as everyone would be moving away.

Strata Solar Company tried to counter those arguments and stated – rightly so – that solar panels are only using the light that reaches them and that, on no account, are they cancer causing. But to no avail. The council voted three to one against granting permission for this small solar farm.

Unfortunately the attitude of many lawmakers in the US government is about the same. They too believe that solar panel make the sun go dark and that wind turbines suck all the wind and might even stop the Earth from spinning. No, I am not joking.

© 2018

Unbranded vs branded products

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

unbranded vs brandedWe have been led to believe, through clever advertising and marketing, that branded products, be it cornflakes, cellphones or whatever, are better than those that do not have a brand label, especially not a “recognized” one. But is that really the truth?

The Lacoste T-shirt, or what other brand name one, more than likely is exactly the same as one that does not have the logo on it. Many brand garments, as well as other products, are the same as those without the big names on them, with the only difference of having the logo embroidered or otherwise attached.

This goes also for, as already indicated, many other branded products, and I would like to come here with two examples.

One of them is a ruggerized cellphone. I got mine at Aldi for around £50, under Aldi's “Workzone” label, and found it to be the same that a coppice worker in the area had that cost him a little over £80. Now there is a JCB cellphone that looks similar, though I could say exactly the same, that cost almost £150 or even more. All in JCB color and with the JCB logo but, and I believe you may have guessed it by now, it has got exactly the very same phone inside as does the Aldi one and the one the coppice worker had.

The second example be my bread maker, also from Aldi, under the “Ambiano” label for £50, which is the same, and I do mean exactly the same bar for the names, that under a variety of top brands is sold for between £95 and £145. So, what that does that tell us?

It tells us that brands, nowadays, at least, mean very little to nothing in the main. Having said that there are probably some, especially if the products is not “Made in China” where they can and will be made for anyone, where the price is worth paying as it is something different. But for many household goods, and electronics, what's on the label is not always what's inside the product, and the same, under a different label, can be had for a quarter if not even half the price, and still the same quality.

Those are not copies of a brand product copied in China (then they would have the brand name on them, wouldn't they, otherwise copies don't work) but those are the same inside. Only on the outside they are different.

It can be safely taken as read that many brand names today – if not even the majority – are not about quality but about ripping off the consumer by suggesting better quality only.

© 2018

The label “natural” on food and other products means absolutely nothing

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

135774b2cc69e2eThe word “natural” helps sell $40 billion worth of food in the USA every year and the label means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is worth less than the paper it is printed upon.

Nothing makes people in many countries of the so-called developed world buy a food product quite like the fabulously ambiguous word "natural."

The top 35 health claims and food labels include words most anyone who has been to a supermarket in the past five years should recognize – ones like "natural," yes, but also "organic," and "fat free," and a couple more such as "carb conscious," "100 calories", etc.

These phrases helped the food industry alone in the USA to sell more than $377 billion worth of masterfully marketed food items annually, according to data from market research firm Nielsen.

The list of lucrative food labels is long, and, at times, upsetting. While many of these labels are pasted onto food packages for good reason. It's imperative, after all, that consumers with celiac disease be able to tell which food items are gluten free, or that those with milk allergies be able to tell which are made without lactose.

Some, however, if not even most others, are utterly meaningless. Take food labeled with the word "natural," for instance. Actually, remember it, because it's probably the most egregious example on supermarket shelves today. The food industry now sells almost $41 billion worth of food each year labeled with the word "natural," according to data from Nielsen. And the "natural" means, well, absolutely nothing. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn't even have an official definition or delineation of what "natural" actually means. The only thing the FDA has regarding the word is this statement, on its website:

From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

One can, probably, safely assume that many other countries have no definition for it.

Natural is hardly the only misleading adjective the food industry is swinging around these days. The word “organic” (or “bio” in German speaking countries) too, while a bit less nebulous, still means a good deal less than one might think. Often it means very little indeed.

Several others, including ones that reference antioxidants, proteins, calcium and other vitamins and minerals, are confusing consumers by tricking them into believing certain food products are healthier than they actually are, a recent study found. And the trend is only likely to get worse.

Aside from the above, though not food related, there are the labels “green”, “environmentally friendly”, and a few others, that also do not – always – mean what the consumer assumes they mean. That also goes for the Label “Fair Trade” or “fairly traded”.

And when it comes to wood products we all too often encounter then more or less entirely worthless label “FSC certified”. That certification is not worth the paper it is printed upon. All those labels serve but one purpose – or maybe two – namely to sell products and to confuse the consumer and lead him or her to believe that they are buying something good for them or good for the environment.

© 2018

Co-op unveils 50% recycled plastic bottles for own-brand water

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Co-op unveils 50 recycled plastic bottles for own-brand waterThe Cop-op has announced that all of its own-brand water bottles will be switched to contain 50% recycled plastic, as part of a plan to "test the water" on how shoppers will react to a change in design. The bottles will be 100% recyclable and sourced in the UK

The switch, set to take place later this year, will reduce Co-op's plastic consumption by almost 350 tonnes annually. However, the new 50% recycled-content bottles will appear darker and cloudier than traditional bottles, and the retailer will gauge whether shoppers will be deterred by aesthetics.

The bottles will be 100% recyclable and sourced in the UK and form the latest in a line of commitments by the retailer and its 4.6 million active members to improve resource efficiency. Members have already backed an ambition by the retailer to ensure all product packaging is easily recyclable.

What part of single-use bottles being a problem does the Co-op not understand. It is irrelevant whether the bottle had 50% recycled content and is 100% recyclable. The bottle is the problem... Hello! Earth calling Co-op.

Earth to Co-op, Earth to Co-op, are you receiving? There are two points you are missing. The first is the water in the bottle which is not better that tap water but you charge a nice hefty price for having it put into the plastic bottle and then the plastic bottle.

The government may have announced the idea of something like the deposit and reverse vending machines are they are found in Germany but even, it would appear, the Co-op is not all that happy about it.

Dearest retain industry, if you do not want to pay for the clean up then do not create the problem in the first place. It is simple. Earth out!

© 2018

Zero waste myths: should we really be avoiding plastic?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Zero waste myths_ should we really be avoidingnbspplasticFirst of all it also must be said that “zero waste” is a myth itself. There is no such thing as “zero waste”. It will never be possible. Having said that, however, does not mean that we should not reduce waste, especially in way of packaging, and waste that occurs also through planned obsolescence.

Images of ocean plastic pollution are causing so much revulsion that many people are switching to some supposedly more “environmentally friendly” materials to try to reduce their impact. But does this actually work? How much greener are the alternatives?

Also, there is plastic and then there is plastic. Single-use plastic, in my opinion, is a bad idea. We should, with the exception of may be a few things, avoid any kind of single use altogether. Other plastics, for plastic products intended to last for a long time, are a different story and here the material, quite often, is the appropriate one, unless we return to (more) natural materials.

Plastic vs Paper: It is easy to see how paper bags are seen as and appear to be more environmentally-friendly than plastic ones. They are made from trees, which grow in nature, and can biodegrade, in fact compost, when they are finished with.

Research, however, consistently finds that paper bags have a far higher carbon footprint than plastic ones, because the process of making them uses so much energy, and not just energy but also lots of water. Trees may be in harmony with nature, but the process for mashing them up into paper is not.

True, paper bags can decompose, but it is not exactly zero waste to use so much energy producing something that is not designed to last. And if you are careful to reuse and recycle a plastic bag, it should be possible to prevent it ending up as litter or in the ocean, whereas every single paper bag will have made a hefty contribution to global warming, regardless of where it ends up. The best option, of course, is to avoid the problem of single-use waste altogether by using reusable bags.

If you are a business and you want to offer something to customers who have forgotten their own bags, consider doing as Arjuna Wholefoods in Cambridge does, which is to invite people to drop off their old plastic bags to be reused. Alternatively, bags made from recycled materials is the next best thing. Just please don't hand out new single-use bags for free, as this does not reflect how much it costs the Earth to produce them.

As for the idea that paper is “more recyclable” than plastic, this has now been repeated so many times, that it has become almost fact. While it is true that paper can be recycled, the quality of it degrades in the process. Plastic can also be recycled, although some types of plastic are easier to recycle than others, and packaging that mixes plastic with other materials can be more tricky to recycle (single-use coffee cups are the most well-known example of this), but also here, in the main, the quality deteriorates and to make good new plastic from recyclables a great deal of virgin polymer needs to be added to the mix. So, there is no such thing – generally – as 100% recycled plastic, with a few exceptions, maybe. .

So, when it comes to recyclability, there is not that much to be gained from choosing paper-based products over plastic ones, and anyway, it is actually a big mistake to be overly focused on how recyclable something is, when most of the impacts of the stuff we consume is in the process of producing it, rather than what happens to it at the end of its life. This is true regardless of the material, but in terms of paper, we need to factor in how much carbon it takes to produce it.

The best way to lower impacts from packaging waste is to reduce the amount of packaging that we buy, and where possible, buy products packaged in recycled materials. Though it has also be said that often we, as consumers, do have little choice as to the amount of packaging of any kind, be this paper, cardboard (often laminated with foil), or plastic except by voting with our wallet and not buying over-packaged products. This can be a difficult undertaking, however,

Plastic vs Metal: Stainless steel tins and bottles are something of a zero waste style statement. There is no doubt that they look good, but the process of producing metals like stainless steel and aluminium releases scary amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. This means that reusables made from metal will need to avoid a lot of waste before they save more resources than it took to produce them.

The choice is really up to each of us: Option one would be stainless steel (or other) products, which are very high impact to produce, but highly durable, or option two would be plastic bottles and containers, which are more environmentally-friendly to produce, but tend to wear out somewhat more quickly, so that you may end up using more of them in the end. This is essentially a judgment call, based on your personal routines and how much waste you expect to avoid by using your reusable bottle and containers.

Single-use cups vs reusable cups: Several studies have looked into how many times a reusable cup needs to be used before it saves more resources than it took to produce. As they are carried out by academics, there is no simple answer – it depends on which type of reusable cup you are using, which type of single-use cup you are trying avoid, and which environmental impact you are considering – but it seems to range from 5-16 times. So, if you would otherwise expect to use at least 17 single-use cups, consider investing in a reusable one. For top marks, see if you can pick one up in a charity shop or other kind of secondhand store.

Glass jars vs plastic packaging: The jury certainly appears to be out on this one still. Glass tends to lose points compared to plastic because of the high carbon emissions involved in manufacturing and transporting it (think of how much more glass weighs) but can redeem itself by being more efficient to recycle than certain types of plastic. Glass jars, for instance, if we want to be thrifty in the way our grandparents and their parents were, also have a great reuse potential for us, whether as storage jars for all kinds of things or as drinking vessels, etc. And the reuse thought should always come well before any thought of recyclability.

If you can and will reuse or refill jars, the that is your best option. Otherwise, there is, apparently, no clear justification for always choosing glass jars over plastic.

Plastic bags vs cotton or other textile bags: Its a bit of a mystery why cotton has gained a reputation for being an environmentally friendly material. It takes 20,000 liters of water to make 1kg of cotton, and much of it is sourced from countries where water is extremely scarce. Worldwide, cotton production causes pollution and biodiversity loss. But there are alternatives to cotton and cotton bags, such as hessian, aka burlap, canvas, and others, including, though it is oil-based to some extent, woven and non-woven polyester bags.

When it comes to plastic there are – if I may put it this way – good plastics and bad plastics and I am not putting so-called bio-degradable into the category of good necessarily either. Also, as far as plastic water bottles, the reusable kind I mean here, are concerned not all leach chemicals. It all depends on the plastic. The Dutch designed (and produced?) “de Dopper”, as an example, does not, and is also of a rather ingenious design.

The biggest problem is plastic packaging and the over-packaging of products, often products that do not need to be packaged in such a way at all. That is where the changes have to happen and we must force industry to make the change.

© 2018

Rekindling our connection to print and paper

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Rekindling our connection to print and paperI have always been a paper guy – preferring to sit down with a good book in hand, not a digital device. And on the writing side, at least as far as notes and drafts of articles, etc., are concerned a pen & paper guy. Digital just does not do it for me and, in fact, is not good for note taking and such at all, and that also according to scientists.

The paperless office isn't here yet and personally I doubt that it ever will be, considering how long it has already been talked about. I still prefer printed material, particularly for longer documents and books as, apparently, do many other people, and not just those of my age and I admit that I am getting a little long in the tooth.

Among some young people the typewriter – yes, the typewriter, would you believe it – even the mechanical – is making somewhat of a comeback and the Russian security services have, because of cyber hacks and other such issues, gone back to typewriters for sensitive material, though in their case to the electric ones.

Did you know that we comprehend and recall more effectively when we read or write with paper vs digital communications? Students surveyed have said they perform better when reading on paper rather than a screen. We also have more emotional connection with hardcopy print because of the physical material, even if you are a “tablet reader”, which I am not. Although, due to the fact that I am amassing some old books in PDF form I am considering getting one solely to be able to more conveniently read such rather than trying a 200 or 300 page book on the PC screen. I find that far too tiring.

When it comes to reading – and I tend to do a fair number of book reviews – I prefer paper copy over electronic and, in fact, refuse to review digital copy, especially if this is of a printed book. In the latter case mostly for the reason that you cannot judge the quality of the book from a pre-print PDF, in my opinion. The feel of the book, in my view, is as important, at least when it comes to physical hardcopies, as the text.

When it comes to writing, especially notes and article drafts there, to me, is no alternative to pen and paper. At times this may be just literally on the back of an envelope, other times in my own little note-taking system while at other times it is in proper notebooks. Also, when we use pen and paper, whether notebooks or other forms, such as I do with a stack of specially folded sheets in a wallet, for our thoughts, articles drafts, or whatever, the data is secure in that no power failure or other technical glitch can destroy it. It is safe from anything but fire and the shredder. A main battle tank could run over my notebook and I will still be able to retrieve the “data” from it. There are also no batteries to fail or any such kind of problems. One of the many reasons that I stick to pen and paper for many things.

While being no Luddite, as you can see, with this article being on the Web and typewritten on a PC I have never lost my connection with pen and paper though, thus I hardly, myself, have to rekindle it. Alas, my handwriting is not the beautiful cursive kind but capital letters. I have tried cursive but it is too slow for me and I can print write much faster, thus following my train of thought.

And, as far as reading is concerned, I have, so far, never, owned an e-book reader though am currently considering investing in one to read larger PDF files. In general, however, it is only the printed book that will ever do it for me. There is something about the printed book, handling it and turning the pages and all that. There is something special about it in the same way as there is something special about writing by hand, even if it is just in capitals, as in my case.

© 2018

Elderly should do community work or lose pension, said peer

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

elderlyLord Bichard, an ex-chief of the Benefits Agency, said in October 2012, and while I know that this is almost six years ago, that the elderly should get rewards and fines to make sure they are taking a more active part in the world.

While, as I have said, this is almost six years ago, attitudes of the regime in Westminster have not changed one iota. It must be remembered also that this comes from a member of the House of Lords, an elderly person who clocks in in the morning to generally sleep on the benches in the House (if that) and gets £300 for just clocking in.

The crossbench peer, who also chaired an inquiry into the murder of two Soham school girls, suggested the same tough attitude towards benefit scroungers should be taken with older people.

“Older people who are not very old could be making a very useful contribution to civil society if they were given some incentive or recognition for doing so,” he told a committee of MPs.

“We are prepared to say to people if you are not looking for work, you don't get a benefit. If you're old and you're not contributing in some way, maybe there should be some penalty attached to that. These debates never seem to take place.

“Are we using all the incentives at our disposal to encourage older people not just to be a negative burden on the state but actually be a positive part of society?”

His remarks were condemned, and rightly so, by pensioner groups as “little more than National Service for the over-60s".

Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said: “This is absolutely outrageous. Those who have paid their national insurance contributions for 30 or more years are entitled to receive their state pension and there should be no attempt to put further barriers in their way.

“We already have one of the lowest state pensions in Europe and one in five older people in Britain live below the poverty line.”

All through their working life those elderly will have paid in to the social security pot in order to receive their pension and it is not a hand-out, in the same way that other social benefits are not, but something that the working person has paid in for. Thus it is his or her due and not something made out by government to be some charity from the side of government.

The attitude seems to be that if you do not work – in the way that the powers-that-be see work – then you have no right to eat. I am waiting when they are going to extend that thought to children too young to work. Maybe I best not give them any silly ideas as they have already far too many of their own.

A similar song, if not even the very same, is also being sung in countries such as Germany, and a couple of other EU nations. First of all, just like the UK, the retirement age is being raised, and it would appear almost year by year now, and then they, like in the UK, make noises that pensioners should still be productive thereafter in charity work or such so as to still contribute rather than “scrounge” from the state.

Countries, like the UK, and others, that are run by neo-liberal thought, can, with attitudes like that prevailing in the corridors of power, really no longer be seen as civilized. Those that they would like to refer to as savages – on the other hand – in may departments are much more civilized than seem to be our nations.

© 2018

Paper planners, diaries and notebooks in the digital age

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

diary-147191_1280One would have thought that paper planners, diaries and notebooks would, by now, have died a death with all the digital “alternatives” available on the PC and online. But they have not – which is also a good thing – and I doubt that they will.

I have tried a fair number of digital “alternatives”, to planners, diaries, etc., both on the PC and online and found all of them rather wanting as, in the main, they cannot be adapted and adjusted to how I want to do things. I do have, I have to admit, Google Calendar but rarely use it, to be honest. I do, however, make use of the calendar in my Thunderbird email program (Open Source Outlook equivalent) for some appointments, and to remind me of birthdays. Otherwise, though, it is pen and paper all the way for me, with the occasional journal note for the diary printed from the PC.

Seeing that so many so-called Millenials and some a little older than that returning, in droves, to pen and paper, and even fountain pens in some cases, seems to point to the fact that they have had the same experience. Furthermore is “pen and paper” also far more secure as it cannot be hacked and will far less likely be searched by (US) border agents.

There is something special about a proper day-to-a-page bound paper appointment diary and the paper notebook. Something that, in my opinion, no digital application or device can ever fulfill. Life without a proper notebook – or more than one actually – and a paper diary are, to me, unthinkable. I also use the diary like a daily journal and that is what may make them special to me and I also keep them on their own shelf as something to revisit at times. Something that you cannot do – at least not as far as I am aware – with any online calendars and other such programs, not even those that are on your PC.

Furthermore I can use my paper diaries, notebooks, and whatever, at any time, anywhere, with no need for batteries and such, and even if the diary or notebook should get run over by a Main Battle Tank – rather unlikely but one never knows – the information contained therein would still be retrievable without much ado. Yes, admittedly, they are a little bulkier than a smartphone or even a tablet computer but then they are more reliable and almost indestructible, short of fire.

Personally I also have another little note-taking system that is a leather wallet with reused A4 sheets of paper folded in a special way to create an A7 size. This gives me, as generally the backside of the page is printed on – as I said reused paper – eight pages of A7 per A4 sheet. And there are four of those in the wallet. Enough, generally, for a day's worth of notes and such.

For general notebooks there is no need to go and spend a lot of money for a Moleskine or such. It is quite simple to make one's own by reusing paper such as one side printed sheets and even the backs of larger envelopes, held together by whatever means.

Also, often, it is possible to, part way into a year, find diaries, A4, A5 and even A6 ones, that are reduced to very low prices. Such a blank diary, especially a day to a page one, makes for a great, almost free, notebook. By buying those diaries up cheaply for your notebook use you also keep them out of the waste stream, whether this is actual recycling or more than likely landfill. Considering that they are made of different kinds of material, aside from paper, the landfill will generally be the way that they would go and thus, by using them as notebooks, we can avoid that happening. I always tend to get a couple when the opportunity presents itself.

I known that there are some to who the use of paper – nowadays – is an anathema, believing that it is better for the Planet not to use paper and that using digital, especially “in the cloud” is better and more environmentally friendly. Alas, this is not the case, and that already on the energy level. As to paper and trees I have written and spoken about so many times that I will not repeat myself.

© 2018

The peace sign is 60 years old this year

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The symbol of peace, the peace sign, is 60 years old this year (2018).

The peace sign is 60 years old this yearIt could be seen on VW mini-buses and other vehicles of the Hippie generation, on the helmets of some soldiers in Vietnam, at Woodstock, and many other places. Sixty years ago Gerald Holtom from Britain created this, the world's best known symbol. The circle and the three lines since stand for peace and reconciliation even though the inspiration itself comes from British military “language”.

Certain groups, especially so-called evangelical, and born-again, Christians claimed and still claim that this symbol was and is the sign of the Antichrist as it is an upside down broken cross. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The British graphic designer and artist Gerald Holtom created this emblem in 1958 on behalf of the British Anti-Nuclear War Initiative who were looking for a suitable emblem for a protest march. On February 21 of that year Holtom presented his scetches.

Later the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) which had grown out of the Initiative and other similar organizations this emblem as their logo. That's why in Britain this symbol is also called the CND-symbol.

With Holtom's sympol on their banners peace activists marched from Good Friday to Easter Sunday 1958 from London to the nuclear weapons facility at Aldermaston in order to protest for peace and reconciliation and against all manner of war, nuclear especially.

The idea for the symbol Hortom took from the sign language of the military, namely flag semaphore alphabet of the Navy which is used to communicate ship to shore, and shore to ship, as well as ship to ship, my means of flags. Each letter is represented by a specific way in which the flags are being held. Holtom worked during the Second World War on the Norfolk coast and had learned this communications medium. For the peace symbol he used the two letters N and D for “Nuclear” and “Disarmament”. The two letters, superimposed upon each other, for the symbolic chicken foot, with the circle representing the Earth.

In a later explanation as to how he came upon the symbol be had a different story, possibly trying to distance himself from the military-based alphabet employed.

As Holtom did deliberately not copyrighted his design it has traveled the world, basically, and is being used all across the world as a symbol for peace and against war. It is, nowadays, also being found not just in anti-nuclear war and anti-war protests in general but also at many other demonstrations for a variety of related issues.

Aside from this sign there are a couple of other “peace signs” and probably the oldest and best-known is the stylized white dove with (or without) the olive branch. Already in the story about the Flood in the Bible, on European coins in the 17th century and in fairy-tales the white dove takes the role of the messenger of good news or of peace. After Pablo Picasso in 1949 put the white dove onto a poster for the Paris Peace Conference it became symbol for peace.

© 2018