About the New York City Parks and Recreation

The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation is New York City's principal provider of recreational and athletic facilities and programs. Our parks are home to free concerts, world-class sports events, and cultural festivals. Parks & Recreation is the steward of nearly 20 percent of New York City's land, including thousands of individual properties ranging from Coney Island Beach and Central Park to community gardens and Greenstreets. We operate athletic fields, playgrounds, tennis courts, public pools, recreational facilities, nature centers, golf courses, and beaches throughout the five boroughs. We also care for monuments and historic house museums and look after hundreds of thousands of street trees.

Context

New York City’s trees shade us in the summer, beautify our neighborhoods, help reduce noise, and support urban wildlife. Beyond these priceless benefits, our urban forest provides us a concrete return on the financial investment we put into it. This return includes stormwater interception, energy conservation, air pollutant removal, and carbon dioxide storage. Our publicly owned trees are as much of an asset to us as our streets, sewers, bridges, and public buildings.

Content

This dataset includes a record for every tree in New York City and includes the tree's location by borough and latitude/longitude, species by Latin name and common names, size, health, and issues with the tree's roots, trunk, and branches.

Acknowledgements

The 2015 tree census was conducted by NYC Parks and Recreation staff, TreesCount! program staff, and hundreds of volunteers.

2019 San Jose City College Faculty and Staff Employee Directory

2019 EVC Faculty and Staff Employee Directory

Background :
While spiritual and mental energies are known to man, their impact has never been scientifically measurable in the material world and they remain outside the domain of science. The present experiments on Yersinia enterocolitica [ATCC –23715], report the effects of such energy transmitted through a person, Mr. Mahendrakumar Trivedi, which has produced an impact measurable in scientifically rigorous manner.

Methods:
Yersinia enterocolitica strains in revived and lyophilized state were subjected to spiritual energy transmitted through thought intervention and/or physical touch of Mr. Trivedi to the sealed tubes containing strain and were analyzed within 10 days after incubation.

Results:
The results indicated that Mr.Trivedi's energy has changed 20 of 33 biochemical characteristics of Yersinia enterocolitica along with significant changes in susceptibility pattern in 15 of 32 antibiotics. The Biotype number has changed from the original control strain giving rise to 2 different biotypes in treated samples while the external energy /treatment given was the same for all treated samples suggestive of random polymorphism as analyzed through an automated machine.

Conclusions:
These results cannot be explained by current theories of science, and indicate a potency in Mr.Trivedi's energy, providing a model for science to be able to investigate the impact of spiritual energy in a rigorous manner.

In lyophilized state, biochemical and enzymatic characteristics could be altered.

Cellulose being an excellent biopolymer has cemented its place firmly in many industries as a coating material, textile, composites, and biomaterial applications. In the present study, we have investigated the effect of biofield treatment on physicochemical properties of cellulose and cellulose acetate. The cellulose and cellulose acetate were exposed to biofield and further the chemical and thermal properties were investigated. X-ray diffraction study asserted that the biofield treatment did affect the crystalline nature of cellulose. The percentage of crystallite size was found increased significantly in treated cellulose by 159.83%, as compared to control sample. This showed that biofield treatment was changing the crystalline nature of treated cellulose. However treated cellulose acetate showed a reduction in crystallite size (-17.38%) as compared to control sample. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) of treated cellulose showed no improvement in melting temperature as compared to control sample. Contrarily cellulose acetate showed significant improvement in melting temperature peak at 351.91ºC as compared to control (344ºC) polymer. Moreover percentage change in latent heat of fusion (∆H) was calculated from the DSC thermogram of both treated and control polymers. A significant increase in percentage ∆H of both treated cellulose (59.09%) and cellulose acetate (105.79%) polymers indicated that biofield treatment enhanced the thermal stability of the treated polymers. CHNSO analysis revealed a significant change in percentage hydrogen and oxygen of treated cellulose (%H-17.77, %O-16.89) and cellulose acetate (%H-5.67, %O-13.41). Though minimal change was observed in carbon percentage of both treated cellulose (0.29%) and cellulose acetate (0.39%) polymers as compared to their respective control samples. Thermo gravimetric analysis and Differential thermo gravimetric (TGA-DTG) analysis of treated cellulose acetate (353ºC) showed increased maximum thermal decomposition temperature as compared to control polymer (351ºC). This showed the higher thermal stability of the treated cellulose acetate polymer; although the maximum thermal decomposition temperature of treated cellulose (248ºC) was decreased as compared to control cellulose (321ºC). These outcomes confirmed that biofield treatment has changed the physicochemical properties of the cellulose polymers.