In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

Have you ever been in the countryside when the farmers are occupied
with muckspreading? Is it illegal? My house and garden are enveloped
in what is euphemistically called an agricultural smell at those
times. Do you really think I could sue the farmers?

Yes. Unless you are classified as a pernicious litigant or whatever
the term is, you can sue anyone for anything. You would enrich the
lawyers and please the editors of the local papers, but not achieve
much else.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 19 Aug 2004 16:30:02 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
Pete C writes:
|
| Also bear in mind creosote type stuff stinks like crazy, and might not
| make your garden a more pleasant environment, or endear you to your
| neighbours. It's probably overkill for a fence, there are better
| alternatives available.

Like what? Creosote works, BECAUSE it is nasty. Most of the others
are fairly useless as preservatives, though they come in pretty
colours.
Hi,

Something based on copper napthanate, aceypetacs zinc/copper,
permethrin, among others, take your pick.

Still, they're all a bit OTT for fence panels in a normal application,
all that is needed is something with a wax based water repellant and a
biocide.

cheers,
Pete.

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
|
| Also bear in mind creosote type stuff stinks like crazy, and might not
| make your garden a more pleasant environment, or endear you to your
| neighbours. It's probably overkill for a fence, there are better
| alternatives available.

Like what? Creosote works, BECAUSE it is nasty. Most of the others
are fairly useless as preservatives, though they come in pretty
colours.

Something based on copper napthanate, aceypetacs zinc/copper,
permethrin, among others, take your pick.

All right. They work, and they are all equally nasty, in different
ways. One advantage of creosote is that it is fairly harmless to
the wider environment, though extremely nasty to the local one.
I do not subscribe to the carcinogenesis fetish - that is a creation
of the tabloids and their dependent politicians.

I don't know how well they work relative to creosote, but have heard
that their effect is more-or-less pro rata to their nastiness.

Still, they're all a bit OTT for fence panels in a normal application,
all that is needed is something with a wax based water repellant and a
biocide.

Which does almost nothing to protect the fence against the normal
causes of rot. Not even in an area as dry as this one. If you
can ensure that fence panels do not remain damp for very long,
even untreated softwood lasts fairly well. The problem is stopping
fungal attack (mainly wet rot) in wood that is damp for long
periods.

Those so-called preservatives are the ones I was referring to as
coming in pretty colours.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Oo" wrote in message
...

"roy" wrote in message
news
They should be banned

They aren't and there is not a law against using them.

and people like you who use them
jailed for inflicting airborn contaminants/vocs/preservatives

You don't know what type of 'paint' I am planning to spray do you?

on your neighbours.

Who said I had neighbours?

If you want to make and song and dance about polluting the air I
suggest you
begin by having a go at industry such as municipal waste
incinerators and
other industrial processes. Or how about the release of radioactive
gases
into the air by nuclear power stations,

Down to here you spoke a great deal of sense. However, you are wrong
about the release of radioactive gases into the air by nuclear power
stations. In normal operation, nuclear power stations do not release
any radioactive gases into the air at all. As a matter of fact, the
old coal fired power stations *did* release a considerable amount of
radioactive materials into the atmosphere, but it was not considered
polite to mention that fact.

[snip]

Franz

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004 21:01:30 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

All right. They work, and they are all equally nasty, in different
ways. One advantage of creosote is that it is fairly harmless to
the wider environment, though extremely nasty to the local one.
I do not subscribe to the carcinogenesis fetish - that is a creation
of the tabloids and their dependent politicians.

So in your opinion creosote isn't carcinogenic?

I don't think that you are a complete idiot, so please don't post
like one.

There are three aspects to the carcinogenesis fetish:

1) Regarding carcinogenetic properties as being inherently worse
than other harmful effects, such as "gender bending", teratogenesis,
the induction of early-onset Alzheimers and so on.

2) Regarding any evidence of carcinogenetic properties as being
grounds for banning things, irrespective of whether the evidence is
based on immense exposure or whether the estimated incidence is
negligible.

3) Ignoring the fact that many essential chemicals and other
factors are carcinogenetic, and that excluding everything that has
been shown to be carcinogenetic would be lethal in short order.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Walt Davidson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:31:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Down to here you spoke a great deal of sense. However, you are wrong
about the release of radioactive gases into the air by nuclear power
stations. In normal operation, nuclear power stations do not release
any radioactive gases into the air at all. As a matter of fact, the
old coal fired power stations *did* release a considerable amount of
radioactive materials into the atmosphere, but it was not considered
polite to mention that fact.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I've got them arguing amongst themselves now.

Trust a kraut to stick his nose in and make a dolt of himself.
:-)))))

Ye gods! ANOTHER sock puppet of Pete the Troll. Or something that
can be classified as such with no loss of information.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

Down to here you spoke a great deal of sense. However, you are wrong
about the release of radioactive gases into the air by nuclear power
stations. In normal operation, nuclear power stations do not release
any radioactive gases into the air at all. As a matter of fact, the
old coal fired power stations *did* release a considerable amount of
radioactive materials into the atmosphere, but it was not considered
polite to mention that fact.

Any more than much of the west and north of the UK is situated on
top of a low-grade uranium ore, and many (most?) chippings used
on roads are 0.001% uranium.

And uranium is radioactive and hence carcinogenic :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:24 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


Have you ever been in the countryside when the farmers are occupied
with muckspreading? Is it illegal? My house and garden are
enveloped
in what is euphemistically called an agricultural smell at those
times. Do you really think I could sue the farmers?

People in Bavaria did and were awarded substantial damages.

Unbelievable!
What are the Bavarian farmers supposed to do with the muck, except
spread it around till they lose it?
{:-))

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

Have you ever been in the countryside when the farmers are occupied
with muckspreading? Is it illegal? My house and garden are
enveloped
in what is euphemistically called an agricultural smell at those
times. Do you really think I could sue the farmers?

Yes. Unless you are classified as a pernicious litigant or whatever
the term is,

A vexatious litigant.

you can sue anyone for anything. You would enrich the
lawyers and please the editors of the local papers, but not achieve
much else.

I thought so.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:23 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:01:53 +0100, "GwG" wrote:

It would have been helpful to have a reference to a particular
law
regarding fence spraying, (as this is what is being discussed
here),
then I might be suitably informed of what I am being ignorant
about. Is
it just certain chemicals that should not be sprayed, or is it
illegal
to spray any preservatives on a fence, no matter how safe that
preservative may be?

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 (EPA 1990)
Part I: Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and Local Authority
Air
Pollution Control (LAAPC)

Section PG6/33(97) - wood coating processes.

It is difficult for me to get a copy of that document. Perhaps you
couls post one or two relevant sentences here? You would then be
educating a large number of urglers simultaneously.

It's all here
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990...00043_en_1.htm

Thanks for the link. However, I don't aim to read all of that, which
is why I asked Walt Davidson to post one or two relevant sentences
here. He did, after all, claim to be familiar with the situation.

Franz

In article ,
Martin writes:
|
| If you do a quick google you will find that your views on carcinogenic
| properties of creosote and it's need to be banned are a 100%
| different to all the professionals. Only a real idiot would describe
| this as "the carcinogenesis fetish - that is a creation
| of the tabloids and their dependent politicians"

You are wrong on two counts.

| BTW I notice you always post using a university account. I assume you
| are yet another person employed in a university computer department
| misusing it's resources?

And again.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 19:29:28 GMT, (Nick Maclaren)
wrote:

http://www.solihull.gov.uk/wwwce/asp...cle.asp?id=349

That figures. "Domestic use isn't a serious problem, so we are
making
it illegal." Typical of those idiots.

You have just exposed yourself as an idiot ... and an ignorant one
at
that.

You have the better of your readers there. Could you please help by
explaining how Nick Maclaren "exposed himself as an idiot ... and an
ignorant one at that."

Why don't you now just concede defeat and let the matter drop?

My guess is that he does not do so because it does not appear to be
necessary.

Franz

In article ,
Martin writes:
|
| Posting to urg is a valid use of a university account? I don't think
| so.

Your opinion is not relevant - that of the relevant people in
Cambridge University is.

In particular, it is strongly forbidden to post using false names,
as you are doing.

| So you are not part of CUS? In that case I have been misinformed.

Hmm. You sounded a little too sane to be another sock puppet of
Pete the Troll, but I am beginning to think that you may be. If
so, congratulations on fooling me, if only for a short while.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Walt Davidson wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004 19:29:28 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


http://www.solihull.gov.uk/wwwce/asp...cle.asp?id=349

That figures. "Domestic use isn't a serious problem, so we are making
it illegal." Typical of those idiots.


You have just exposed yourself as an idiot ... and an ignorant one at
that.

Why don't you now just concede defeat and let the matter drop?


On a more philosophical note, where would usenet be if the world wasn't
plagued with last-word maniacs?

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 21:01:30 GMT, (Nick Maclaren)
wrote:


All right. They work, and they are all equally nasty, in different
ways. One advantage of creosote is that it is fairly harmless to
the wider environment, though extremely nasty to the local one.
I do not subscribe to the carcinogenesis fetish - that is a
creation
of the tabloids and their dependent politicians.

So in your opinion creosote isn't carcinogenic?

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.

A comparison of the risks associated with the use of creosote and the
use of aluminium or copper kitchen utensils would also be interesting.

Oh, for the days when mothers sent their children out so look at the
creosote operations when open cauldrons were in use during road repair
activities. In those days the fumes were considered good for the
chest, and smelling the stuff was cheaper than buying a creosote-based
cough mixture.

Franz