In article ,
"ned" writes:
|
| 'Not sure I follow that argument but by the same reasoning,
| '.... not many peeps on this group' will recognise ragwort induced
| liver failure but most will recognise grass. ;-)
|
| It is certainly the responsibility of horse owners to ensure that
| THEIR grazing is ragwort free and that their bought in hay comes from
| a reputable, trustworthy source. It is not the responsibility of the
| entire nation to reduce the biodiversity of the country just so that a
| minority section of the populace can sleep easier in their beds.

I fully agree. It is unclear how much of a danger it really is,
anyway, and the issue is OXFORD ragwort not the native species!

| How many child deaths occur from the consumption of poisonous
| berries? Yet do we see campaigns to eradicate deadly nightshade,
| foxglove, laburnam, ivy, etc., etc.

God help us, we do. Not just against giant hogweed, but against
yew hedges - evidently by idiots who regard Hamlet as a toxicological
reference. Perhaps BECAUSE there are virtually no deaths - people
always fear the unknown.

| Let's just keep the problem in perspective.

We may be able to, but it is unlikely that the press, politicians
botanically ignorant public (99%) and bureaucrats will.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18 Aug 2003 11:11:33 GMT, wrote:

Ron wrote:

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed.

Snip

I trust that you do not use broad band insecticides.

One explanation for the increase in ragwort is most likely the reduction in
the tiger moth population for their caterpillars eat the weed and I've seen

Not tiger moths, it's the Cinnabar moth caterpillars that eat ragwort.

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:

Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
it.

DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article , "Dave Liquorice" writes:
| On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:
|
| Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
| they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
| it.
|
| DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
| point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
| should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
| that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

Almost certainly the arse covering side of safe! You do not increase
safety by going bananas. I am now seeing that sort of notice on
bags of sharp sand - yes, really, complete with instructions to
wash carefully with soap after any accidental contact.

Now, which is more likely to cause skin irritation - soap or sand?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:

Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
it.

DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article , "Dave Liquorice" writes:
| On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:
|
| Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
| they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
| it.
|
| DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
| point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
| should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
| that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

Almost certainly the arse covering side of safe! You do not increase
safety by going bananas. I am now seeing that sort of notice on
bags of sharp sand - yes, really, complete with instructions to
wash carefully with soap after any accidental contact.

Now, which is more likely to cause skin irritation - soap or sand?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:

Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
it.

DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article , "Dave Liquorice" writes:
| On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:
|
| Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
| they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
| it.
|
| DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
| point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
| should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
| that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

Almost certainly the arse covering side of safe! You do not increase
safety by going bananas. I am now seeing that sort of notice on
bags of sharp sand - yes, really, complete with instructions to
wash carefully with soap after any accidental contact.

Now, which is more likely to cause skin irritation - soap or sand?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Stephen Howard wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 11:11:33 GMT, wrote:

Ron wrote:

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed.

Snip

I trust that you do not use broad band insecticides.

One explanation for the increase in ragwort is most likely the reduction in
the tiger moth population for their caterpillars eat the weed and I've seen

Not tiger moths, it's the Cinnabar moth caterpillars that eat ragwort.

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Not in my moth books it isn't! I'll check tonight but I suspect it
may even be in a different family.

--
Chris Green )

Stephen Howard wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 11:11:33 GMT, wrote:

Ron wrote:

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed.

Snip

I trust that you do not use broad band insecticides.

One explanation for the increase in ragwort is most likely the reduction in
the tiger moth population for their caterpillars eat the weed and I've seen

Not tiger moths, it's the Cinnabar moth caterpillars that eat ragwort.

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Not in my moth books it isn't! I'll check tonight but I suspect it
may even be in a different family.

--
Chris Green )

Stephen Howard wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 11:11:33 GMT, wrote:

Ron wrote:

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed.

Snip

I trust that you do not use broad band insecticides.

One explanation for the increase in ragwort is most likely the reduction in
the tiger moth population for their caterpillars eat the weed and I've seen

Not tiger moths, it's the Cinnabar moth caterpillars that eat ragwort.

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Not in my moth books it isn't! I'll check tonight but I suspect it
may even be in a different family.

--
Chris Green )

On 18 Aug 2003 15:03:30 GMT, wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 11:11:33 GMT, wrote:

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Not in my moth books it isn't! I'll check tonight but I suspect it
may even be in a different family.

Try Arctiidae

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On 18 Aug 2003 15:03:30 GMT, wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 11:11:33 GMT, wrote:

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Not in my moth books it isn't! I'll check tonight but I suspect it
may even be in a different family.

Try Arctiidae

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dave Liquorice" writes:
| On 18 Aug 2003 11:16:23 GMT, wrote:
|
| Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA about it
| they said that as far as they knew it was harmless to touch and pull
| it.
|
| DEFRA need to stop contradicting themselves, read that "large" .PDF
| point to a while back. That pretty much states that skin contact
| should be avoided, long sleeves and trousers, gloves etc. Mind you
| that whole document is on the safe side of safe.

Almost certainly the arse covering side of safe! You do not increase
safety by going bananas. I am now seeing that sort of notice on
bags of sharp sand - yes, really, complete with instructions to
wash carefully with soap after any accidental contact.

Now, which is more likely to cause skin irritation - soap or sand?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I have researched this. In detail by looking through the scientific
literature.
The claim that Ragwort is a human health risk if handled is complete
nonsense.
It isn't even particularly toxic to animals. AS I keep saying there is
an example in the scientific literature of a horse being deliberately
fed over 20% of its body weight of dried ragwort and SURVIVING! It is
only the cumulative effects that make it toxic.

The dose that a human would have to consume would be in the order of a
stone or so in weight. No direct research has been done on ragwort but
it has been done on Comfrey which contains similar chemicals. This
study on rats showed that skin absorbtion was up to 50 times less than
that through the gut.

You'd have to bathe in the stuff regularly for there to be any effect.

Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve

Not tiger moths, it's the Cinnabar moth caterpillars that eat ragwort.

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.


I was told when a nipper in the depths of GLS that the tiger moth was so
called because it's caterpillar was coloured and striped like a tiger.

Ron