Steve wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:37:56 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:29 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

You should think very carefully about the flammability
and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).

Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
I agree but some of us can handle it safely. Others should not be
allowed anywhere near it )
You are headed for a Darwin award.

Really? Who will be fitting enough to award it?

An organisation that records when people write themselves out of the
gene pool by doing incredibly stupid things.

I can just about understand an irrational fear of all "chemicals" in the
general public. But I find it hard to reconcile this with an intention
to spray petrol and/or diesel all over the place.

Try not to spoil a simple discussion by going off on a complicated
tangent.

How has a 50ft gravel drive suddenly become *all over the place*?

I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.

Any issues with this do you think?
Glyphosate is much more environmentally friendly than everything except
the vinegar (and chances are that was industrially manufactured).
There are 1001 reasons for not using glyphosate. None of which you'll
here from the salesman who has us all duped in whatever we buy. Be it
weed killer or any other noxious chemical invented by Monsanto.
Glyphosate is relatively benign.

No it isn't it's a terrible substance and one we managed without for
many centuries and will continue to do so.

It is a synthetic chemical. It is also extremely deadly to green plants
or anything else with a shikimic acid pathway. That does not include the
higher animals.

"Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted
plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes.
Estimated use in the U.S. is between 38 and 48 million pounds per
year. Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with
a surfactant, chemicals that help glyphosate to penetrate plant cells.

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea,
numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The
surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more
acutely toxic than glyphosate itself the combination of the two is yet
more toxic.

And which paranoid green crank page for the worried well did this screed
of bullshit come from? Oh I see below. www.mindless.org

Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking
that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard
categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term
toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed
stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on
reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of
abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency
of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).

But hardly anything at all until they are fed grammes per kilogram of
body weight. Starting to get into the regime where stomach capacity to
eat food as well as the dose of test material becomes an issue.

To put it into context ingesting glyphosate is slightly less acutely
toxic to rats than ingesting table salt or ethanol. Noone would call
table salt or alcohol acutely toxic and expect to be taken seriously.

http://chemlabs.uoregon.edu/Safety/toxicity.html

Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications.

It binds tightly enough to clays and soil particles that its lifetime as
an active herbicide is extremely short. The molecule may hang around for
a while in some unusual environments but it is degraded quickly in most
places.

Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects,
birds, and small mammals by destroying vegetation on which they depend
for food and shelter.

This is about the only true statement. Since the US does tend to overuse
it to grow Roundup ready GM crops with very heavy use of glyphosate.

In laboratory tests, glyphosate increased plants' susceptibility to
disease and reduced the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria"

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm

Glyphosate is the environmentally friendly weedkiller of choice.

Not for anyone who cares about themselves or the planet they live on.

It is way better than any of the alternatives.

Not sure if you have noticed but we are dropping like flies these days
and not from old age. We may well never know just how bad all these
chemicals we produce are, but one things for sure we see the results
in our family membership lists getting shorter and shorter.

Especially if you start spraying petrol around. Beyond clueless.

On that basis I think we have your views and you have mine. No need to
argue about it.

There is a clear need to prevent you from doing something that is
bordering on suicidal in the mistaken belief that it somehow is
"chemical" free. Even sodium chlorate would be a safer option for paths
than the cretinous measures that you propose to take.

Regards,
Martin Brown