In article ,
Martin writes:
| On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:16:25 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
| wrote:
|
| I don't think that is in contention. What matters would be to try and
| quantify the relative risks of contracting cancer as a result of being
| exposed to a fence painted with creosote, compared with taking a walk
| in the Lake District, where the fells are rapidly being invaded by
| bracken. This, as you know, is also trumpeted as being carcinogenic
| by the Cassandras of this world.
|
| My understanding is that scientific experts have assessed the risks of
| using creosote and have given it the thumbs down.

Which is not in contention, as Franz Heymann said. What is in
contention is whether it is a serious enough matter to make it a
crime for private citizens to use. And, if you look a bit harder,
you will find that the answer is that it isn't.

| I spent half an hour googling and could only find support for the
| decision.

Surprise, surprise!

You will also find nothing but support for the current lunacies to
do with asbestos. When they were introduced, I talked to one of
the world experts, and he said that it was likely that leaving it
in houses would cause only 1-2 deaths a year in the UK. But
removing all of it from houses would cause hundreds (not per year).
So we have this massive industry to remove the stuff.

My understanding is that the risk from creosote is comparable,
and that phasing it out should have been done years ago (because
of the risk to COMMERCIAL users) but making its domestic use a
crime is at best pettifogging bureaucracy and more probably
vindictiveness.

Note that, as with Benlate, foot-and-mouth, Dutch elm disease and
many other things, the problems with creosote all arose in the
commercial sector, but the solution adopted by The Powers That Be
has been to ban domestic practices and place minimal and often
unenforced restrictions on the commercial practices that caused
the problem in the first place!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.