I get a reaction to all the blackberry-raspberry hybrids. It's more than the prickles - it's the full itchy rash thing.

On 09/05/2011 17:16, wrote:
In ,
Martin wrote:

ISTR that the giant hogweed persecution in the UK began in the 60's
after children playing with the stems suffered appalling injuries to
face and arms as a result. I never really considered cow parsley that
much of a threat but the risk is possible - same with that tasty variety
of celery that they bred with potent photosensitivity.

Which rag did you get that out of? The headlines certainly said
"appalling injuries", but it was a dead period and the gutter
press needed some headlines. As far as I know (and I tried to
check), they were nothing more than the normal photochemical
reaction, and would heal up normally.

At least half the sources I looked up said it can cause long lasting
scars and that the phototoxicity is persistent for some time after
exposure (although at its worst soon afterwards in strong sunshine).
RHS are not that keen on it either.

http://apps.rhs.org.uk/advicesearch/...e.aspx?pid=458

It's just like the asbestos hysteria, which has had the primary
effect of creating a totally unnecessary industry of asbestos
removal, and has almost certainly not had a measurable effect
on health.

I don't think your namesake Malcolm would be quite so cavalier about the
risks of asbestos. UK has too much blue and brown asbestos around in the
mix. The white form and concrete composite materials using it are
relatively benign by comparison and at least 100x less dangerous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...aren-dies.html

Oh, for heaven's sake! The problems were ALL, to within measurability,

He smashed up his shop for effect - all very punk I suppose. He didn't
know that it was asbestos cement panelling and possibly much worse pipe
lagging. The effects are long delayed and made worse by smoking.

caused to people who were working with asbestos, and not those who
merely used the products. All that was needed was to tighten the
Elfin Safety rules in its manufacture and processing, but the
hysterics demanded actions that probably increased the danger
to the public (from almost nil to negligible). Phasing it out
was the correct decision, but the panic was (and is) not, and there
is absolutely no justification for removing it from buildings as
soon as it is found.

Those aren't just my opinions. I got the same from two experts
on the topic - and I mean top-level experts - who I met socially.

I don't substantially disagree that removing all asbestos no matter
where it is and how well confined has become a crazy overreaction. But
the US studies highlight the problems in the UK with our somewhat more
nasty mixture of blue and brown asbestos against their mostly white.

The risk from asbestos in the UK to ordinary people was and is
almost certainly lower than the risk of being killed by lightning,
and other such things.

The risk to the public is about 3x higher here than in the USA.

And according to HSE about a 1:1000 lifetime risk of mesothelioma for
non-occupational exposure - you would need a heck of a lot of lethal
lightning strikes to kill that many people. See for example:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr696.htm

Whilst I don't agree with everything they say this lot have a point.

http://www.asbestosexposureschools.c...5_%20_2 _.pdf

There were chunks of asbestos lagging falling off the heating pipes at
my school (now demolished).

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

ISTR that the giant hogweed persecution in the UK began in the 60's
after children playing with the stems suffered appalling injuries to
face and arms as a result. I never really considered cow parsley that
much of a threat but the risk is possible - same with that tasty variety
of celery that they bred with potent photosensitivity.

Which rag did you get that out of? The headlines certainly said
"appalling injuries", but it was a dead period and the gutter
press needed some headlines. As far as I know (and I tried to
check), they were nothing more than the normal photochemical
reaction, and would heal up normally.

At least half the sources I looked up said it can cause long lasting
scars and that the phototoxicity is persistent for some time after
exposure (although at its worst soon afterwards in strong sunshine).
RHS are not that keen on it either.

Yes, it can - JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE OTHER PLANTS WE
HAVE MENTIONED.

It's no worse than the sumachs and euphorbias, to name but two
of the most problematic families. And that is why the claims
that it is the cause of most such reactions is pure and simple
bullshit.

He smashed up his shop for effect - all very punk I suppose. He didn't
know that it was asbestos cement panelling and possibly much worse pipe
lagging. The effects are long delayed and made worse by smoking.

MUCH worse - pipe lagging is soft and causes dust - asbestos cement
panelling is just not a problem until you drill or sand it, or cut
it with a dust-making saw.

I don't substantially disagree that removing all asbestos no matter
where it is and how well confined has become a crazy overreaction. But
the US studies highlight the problems in the UK with our somewhat more
nasty mixture of blue and brown asbestos against their mostly white.

That is correct. But the fanatics were determined to have the same
rules for all (though they didn't QUITE win), just like the damn
fool law for the carriage of compressed gases. Yes, a 50/50
mixture of argon and nitrogen must be carried on special vehicles,
just like oxygen or chlorine.

They COULD have made some more rational rules, but the hysterical
media wouldn't let them.

The risk from asbestos in the UK to ordinary people was and is
almost certainly lower than the risk of being killed by lightning,
and other such things.

The risk to the public is about 3x higher here than in the USA.

And according to HSE about a 1:1000 lifetime risk of mesothelioma for
non-occupational exposure - you would need a heck of a lot of lethal
lightning strikes to kill that many people. See for example:

No. That asserted a 1:1000 lifetime risk of mesothelioma, and gave
no reference - that does NOT demonstrate it was due to exposure.
It probably was, though - assuming that it's correct, which it may
not be, because it may include all cases where they didn't know
whether the victim had worked with asbestos.

But I accept that what I said was not true. Delete the "was and",
and I believe that it is true.

The point is that, back when it was so widely used, it was being
cut, drilled and even sanded on most building sites, and virtually
everyone in the UK was exposed to building site dust during that
period. I didn't think of that, and should have done.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.