On 02/06/2010 20:32, Jeff Layman wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/10 12:03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/06/2010 10:47, wrote:
Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?

You should probably have done a last time buy. You are not supposed to
use it any more though since ISTR 10/5/2010. Not sure why the EU banned
it - probably some halfwitted jobsworth interfering again.

Maybe you should use google to find the reasons before going off at half
cock?

The reasons are given here

http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.c...l.htm#sodchlor

There is very little information at that ref. More info is given he
COMMISSION DECISION
of 10 November 2008
concerning the non-inclusion of chlorate in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing
that substance
(notified under document number C(2008) 6587)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2008/865/EC)

"During the examination of this active substance by the
Committee, it was concluded, taking into account
comments received from Member States, that there are
clear indications that it may be expected that it has
harmful effects on human health, in particular taking
into consideration the unacceptable exposure to
operators taking into account the proposed provisional
AOEL. In addition, information was insufficient to
establish a definitive AOEL and to assess the leaching
of a relevant metabolite to groundwater. Moreover,
other concerns which were identified by the rapporteur
Member States in its assessment report are included in
the review report for the substance."

Unfortunately I have been unable to find what the other concerns of the
rapporteur (France) were. The EU reporting system is a mass of
cross-referencing which leads you everywhere except where you want to be!

You miss-spelled "mess" as "mass".

Rapporteur "I was drunk at the time I don't really remember.".

I expect the EU reporting system is modelled on the Mickeysoft help
system which defines HELP as:

he: (n) the masculine pronoun
LP: (n) obsolete black vinyl sound recording disc with diameter 25cm

Usually it is something insane like they want a hundred dogs and rabbits
dosed in the eye with it before signing off the approval. Since there is
no big money to be made selling sodium chlorate noone will pay for the
testing. That is how they zapped ammonium sulphamate but ISTR it was the
thicko Irish rapporteur who was responsible.

I expect in other EU countries you can still buy all these banned
chemicals. Only the UK takes these rules seriously. When I lived in
Belgium they were still selling 40% HF in garden centres as "glass
cleaner" to the general public. Wounds from that stuff never heal.

Concentrated mineral acids were on the supermarket shelves!

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Pete
writes
Glyphosate is the stuff you need.

It will kill all but the broadest leafed stuff at one application.
It works by foliar contact so your dream of "it staying in the ground "
will remain a dream !

It comes in five litre concentrate form from the "locked away
section" at about £40, so you will need a knapsack or similar sprayer.

Regards
Pete


No Pete i think the OP like many of us also wants to stop seedlings from
stuff like sycamores from germinating in the gravel as well. It's no
good killing the stuff that's there only to find that three weeks later
you have another crop of tree seedlings etc.!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/06/2010 14:58, wrote:
David in wrote:
On 02/06/2010 11:47, wrote:
Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?

I recently used up my last bit of Sodium Chlorate on one part of our
large area of gravel and Pathclear on another area. The Pathclear
seems to have been totally ineffective whereas the Sodium Chlorate
worked well. So I'm not very impressed with Pathclear for a start.

I *want* the weedkiller to stay in the ground for as long as possible
so products that leave 'no residue' are most definitely not what I
want.

It's a big (like getting on for 1000 square metres) area of gravel so
price is quite a major consideration.


My gravel drive is something like 300 metres long. I've used Sodium
Chlorate and I've used Glypohsate. Glyphosate worked out cheaper! One of
those five litre tubs of concentrate is expensive but it lasts a very
long time. The sodium chlorate was no better at killing weeds and new
ones popped up soon after it rained anyway, so it didn't seem to have a
long lasting effect. During Summer I spray the drive every couple of
months. Just don't use Roundup - it is a very expensive way of buying
generic glyphosate.

"Every couple of months" seems very frequent to me. I've got our
gravel pretty well dosed with sodium chlorate and it seems to be
fairly inhospitable to new growth. The trouble with using just
glyphosate is that it has virtually no residual effect so (as you
describe) isn't very long lasting.

Sodium chlorate is pretty soluble though and tends to wash downhill. You
must have put a heck of a lot on if it lasts longer term or live
somewhere very very dry!

East Anglia is pretty dry and the ground under our gravel is fairly
solid and impermeable. ... and what's "downhill"? :-)

--
Chris Green

Jeff Layman wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/10 12:03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/06/2010 10:47, wrote:
Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?

You should probably have done a last time buy. You are not supposed
to use it any more though since ISTR 10/5/2010. Not sure why the EU
banned it - probably some halfwitted jobsworth interfering again.

Maybe you should use google to find the reasons before going off at
half cock?

The reasons are given here

http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.c...l.htm#sodchlor

There is very little information at that ref. More info is given
he COMMISSION DECISION
of 10 November 2008
concerning the non-inclusion of chlorate in Annex I to Council
Directive 91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing
that substance
(notified under document number C(2008) 6587)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2008/865/EC)

"During the examination of this active substance by the
Committee, it was concluded, taking into account
comments received from Member States, that there are
clear indications that it may be expected that it has
harmful effects on human health, in particular taking
into consideration the unacceptable exposure to
operators taking into account the proposed provisional
AOEL. In addition, information was insufficient to
establish a definitive AOEL and to assess the leaching
of a relevant metabolite to groundwater. Moreover,
other concerns which were identified by the rapporteur
Member States in its assessment report are included in
the review report for the substance."

Unfortunately I have been unable to find what the other concerns of
the rapporteur (France) were. The EU reporting system is a mass of
cross-referencing which leads you everywhere except where you want to
be!

That's the whole purpose of it. The system is designed like a sponge out of
which laws ooze, but whose provenance is basically impossible to determine.
Welcome to post-democracy...


Ian

On 03/06/10 01:32, Ian B wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/10 12:03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/06/2010 10:47, wrote:
Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?

You should probably have done a last time buy. You are not supposed
to use it any more though since ISTR 10/5/2010. Not sure why the EU
banned it - probably some halfwitted jobsworth interfering again.

Maybe you should use google to find the reasons before going off at
half cock?

The reasons are given here

http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.c...l.htm#sodchlor

There is very little information at that ref.

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 03/06/10 12:19, wrote:
In article ,
Martin wrote:

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.

So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.


Too much common salt in the ground water isn't a good thing.
In places like the Netherlands it is a major problem.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.

So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.

Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
rainfall is too high.

Too much common salt in the ground water isn't a good thing.
In places like the Netherlands it is a major problem.

That's irrelevant. No plausible use of either sodium chlorate or
common salt as a weedkiller will have a noticeable effect - even
its much greater use for road de-icing doesn't. The problem in
the Netherlands (and parts of East Angular) is seawater percolating
in because of the low water table.

I shall not follow up, as I suspect that you are trolling.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:28:50 +0100 (BST), wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.

So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.

Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
rainfall is too high.


Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
by the rain but that does not stop it working.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

In article ,
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.

Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
rainfall is too high.

Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
by the rain but that does not stop it working.

Yes, but it won't kill established weeds! Preventing small ones from
establishing is relatively easy. Once they have their roots down,
all it will do is to burn off the tops - even sodium chlorate isn't
all that effective against established weeds.

I tried salt, and found that it was pretty hopeless, but it is
likely that its effectiveness will depend on conditions.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
writes
I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.


AND what's more if it can move that far in the soil then everything
around would be dead, which it isn't , You can pretty much water up to
certain areas without affecting them at all!

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On 03/06/2010 12:40, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:28:50 +0100 (BST), wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.

So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.

Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
rainfall is too high.


Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
by the rain but that does not stop it working.

Grit rock salt would be cheaper and a heck of a lot more environmentally
friendly. Do you have any idea how much additional energy goes into
making food grade refined and recrystallised salt?

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , writes
"Every couple of months" seems very frequent to me. I've got our
gravel pretty well dosed with sodium chlorate and it seems to be
fairly inhospitable to new growth. The trouble with using just
glyphosate is that it has virtually no residual effect so (as you
describe) isn't very long lasting.

--
Chris Green

Isn't Pathclear a season long weed suppressant?

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:38:49 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 03/06/2010 12:40, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:28:50 +0100 (BST), wrote:

Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
by the rain but that does not stop it working.

Grit rock salt would be cheaper and a heck of a lot more environmentally
friendly. Do you have any idea how much additional energy goes into
making food grade refined and recrystallised salt?


I used rock salt previously but for some reason it does not work as
well as refined salt. It also leaves a bit of a mess on the path which
I assume is all the insoluble part of the "rock". Rocksalt is great
for gravel paths but not for stone paths.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 03/06/10 01:32, Ian B wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
(snip)

http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.c...l.htm#sodchlor

There is very little information at that ref.

Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?

Did I read what, my Norwegian friend? What you have quoted is more or less
what it says at that ref in its entirety. It is a nonsensical summary.

Ever heard of haemolysis? Water breaks down red blood cells if its
"concentration" is too high (ie the concentration of salts is too low).
Anyway, the effect of chlorate on erythrocyte membranes has been known for
at least 25 years, so why the sudden ban? You might like to read this -
part of a report to the Californian environmental authorities
(http://oehha.ca.gov/water/pals/chlorate.html):

"Human Toxicity Studies

Lubbers and Bianchine (1984) studied the short-term effect of administration
of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, including chlorate, on human
volunteers. Ten male subjects were administered 1,000 mL of water containing
varying concentrations of sodium chlorate (range 0.01 - 2.4 ppm chlorate).
The control group received deionized water. Treatments were divided into two
500 mL aliquots; administered four hours apart. The study involved a series
of six treatments in 16 days, which was considered as a single
time-dependent experiment. Blood and urine samples were collected from all
study participants. No adverse physiological effects were identified,
although there was some variation between the treatment group and the
control group with regard to bilirubin and serum iron measurements. In a
companion study, normal adult male subjects were administered 500 ml of a 5
ppm solution of chlorine dioxide, chlorite, or chlorate daily for 12 weeks
(Lubbers et al., 1984a), corresponding to a dose of about 0.04 mg/kg.
Physical examinations, collection of blood and urine samples for laboratory
assays, and taste evaluations were conducted on a weekly basis during the
treatment period and for eight weeks following cessation of the treatment.
Any value for an individual subject that differed from the group mean by
more than two standard deviations was noted. The authors reported that "no
clinically important physiological effects" were observed. A small number of
subjects yielded abnormal hemoglobin electrophoresis patterns, but these
results were randomly distributed among the groups. In a third study, a
small number of subjects with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiencies
which might make them more susceptible to oxidative stress caused by the
chlorine disinfectants was exposed to the same dose of chlorite daily for 12
weeks (Lubbers et al., 1982, 1984b). Some statistically significant trends
in biochemical or physiological parameters (albumin/globulin ratio, thyroid
hormone levels, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, and methemoglobin values) were
observed, but were judged to be of no clinical significance. Chlorite and
chlorate can be expected to have similar biochemical effects, but do not
appear to be absorbed and distributed in the same fashion and are not
interconvertible in vivo, according to the data from rat studies
(Abdel-Rahman et al., 1979b, 1984a)."

And what did the Californian authorities conclude from this? (Remember they
are some of the most environmentally "keen" authorities anywhere!) They
haven't banned chlorate:

"OEHHA recommends an action level of 200 ug/L (ppb) chlorate based on the
male rat data (rounded). We believe this level would be adequate to protect
against any potential toxic effects in humans. This conclusion is supported
by the human studies of Lubbers and coworkers, who found no effects in adult
male humans with subchronic chlorate doses of 2.5 mg/day. This dose would
correspond to a drinking water concentration of 1.25 ppm with a drinking
water consumption of 2 L/day. The recommended action level is about
one/sixth this no-observed-effect level."

And as to your comment about the water supply, perhaps you can explain to me
how a powerful oxidising agent remains stable in groundwater long enough to
reach the water supply when there are so many reducing agents around which
will inactivate it?

--

Jeff