"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:39:31 +0100, "GwG" wrote:

in fact, I have never even considered that there
could be a problem, but to suggest jailing me for not being
aware,
without even offering any education on the subject, seems a bit
extreme.

Ignorance of the law is no defence. It is an offence to pollute
the
atmosphere ... full stop.

That is twaddle. Think of motor cars, electric power plants,
bonfires, incinerators.............

Think Clean Air Act.

Incinerators were banned ten years ago in NL , they produced all
sorts
of nasty things including dioxins.

As do barbecues fired with wood.

People living down wind of the
incinerators were far less healthy than the rest of the population,
high incidences of respiratory diseases etc.


One of the wood preservative agents mentioned in an earlier
posting
contains a particularly toxic cocktail of pollutants.

Which preservative?

creosote

What does the cocktail of pollutants consist of?

a mix of pollutants

Why should spraying a fence necessarily pollute the atmosphere?

He thought of creosote.

I
would have thought the spray components which don't land on the
fence
would settle out in a matter of a few tens of seconds.

not if they are aerosols.

An air-driven sprayer does not produce much by way of aerosols.

Franz

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
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.
:-)))))

Is it too much to hope that you will shut up now that you have run out
of arguments?

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
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 :-)

As is tritium. Think of all those trutium-laden granite houses in
Cornwall. But it is also not polite to speak about that, for fear of
upsetting the housing market.

Franz

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:01:45 +0100, "Oo"
wrote:

THANKS to those who responded with *useful* and informative info.

I believe my response was both useful and informative. If my advice
is followed, it will help you to avoid being prosecuted.
:-)

And I believe in the tooth fairy.

Franz

In article ,
Martin writes:
| On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:16:25 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
| wrote:
|
| 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.
|
| My understanding is that scientific experts have assessed the risks of
| using creosote and have given it the thumbs down.

Which is not in contention, as Franz Heymann said. What is in
contention is whether it is a serious enough matter to make it a
crime for private citizens to use. And, if you look a bit harder,
you will find that the answer is that it isn't.

| I spent half an hour googling and could only find support for the
| decision.

Surprise, surprise!

You will also find nothing but support for the current lunacies to
do with asbestos. When they were introduced, I talked to one of
the world experts, and he said that it was likely that leaving it
in houses would cause only 1-2 deaths a year in the UK. But
removing all of it from houses would cause hundreds (not per year).
So we have this massive industry to remove the stuff.

My understanding is that the risk from creosote is comparable,
and that phasing it out should have been done years ago (because
of the risk to COMMERCIAL users) but making its domestic use a
crime is at best pettifogging bureaucracy and more probably
vindictiveness.

Note that, as with Benlate, foot-and-mouth, Dutch elm disease and
many other things, the problems with creosote all arose in the
commercial sector, but the solution adopted by The Powers That Be
has been to ban domestic practices and place minimal and often
unenforced restrictions on the commercial practices that caused
the problem in the first place!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin writes:
|
| You will also find nothing but support for the current lunacies to
| do with asbestos. When they were introduced, I talked to one of
| the world experts, and he said that it was likely that leaving it
| in houses would cause only 1-2 deaths a year in the UK. But
| removing all of it from houses would cause hundreds (not per year).
| So we have this massive industry to remove the stuff.
|
| 1-2 deaths a year, ignores the accidental release of asbestos, caused
| by fires etc.

No, it didn't. It included that. Note that I said houses.
Some factories were pretty badly saturated with loose fibres,
which is the form in which it is dangerous.

| I worked in an office building where there was a steady release of
| stuff from between ceiling tiles.

His figures were based on the assumption that asbestos that was
causing problems would be removed, and that not causing trouble
would be left. Unlikely to see that level of intelligence in the
UK, I know.

| Insuring US companies against asbestos and other pollution risks is
| the main cause of Lloyds of London's problems.

And virtually NONE of that corresponds to people harmed by
domestic use of any such material.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

And uranium is radioactive and hence carcinogenic :-)

As is tritium. Think of all those trutium-laden granite houses in
Cornwall. But it is also not polite to speak about that, for fear of
upsetting the housing market.

Franz




Radon gas is the bigger problem here in Cornwall Franz. But we can get our
houses tested for radioactivity free of charge.

Oll an Gwella

PaulF

In article ,
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

And spraying a fence is not an offence.

Nor is troll feeding

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com
A useful bit of gardening software at http://www.netservs.com/garden/

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:30 +0100 (BST), (Steve
Harris) wrote:

In article ,
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

And spraying a fence is not an offence.

Nor is troll feeding

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com
A useful bit of gardening software at http://www.netservs.com/garden/

"Martin" wrote in message
...
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.

During abnormal operation it has been known to happen :-(

Indeed. Very many untoward things happen during abnormal operation of
complicated systems. In the UK, there has been a vastly larger number
of deaths associated with the production of electricity from
coal-fired stations than by nuclear driven stations.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:16:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:01:45 +0100, "Oo"
wrote:

THANKS to those who responded with *useful* and informative
info.

I believe my response was both useful and informative. If my
advice
is followed, it will help you to avoid being prosecuted.
:-)

And I believe in the tooth fairy.

LOL still hoping to find a silver sixpence under your pillow?

The fairy cheated me. I only won threepence per tooth.

Franz

"Paul F" wrote in message
...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

And uranium is radioactive and hence carcinogenic :-)

As is tritium. Think of all those trutium-laden granite houses in
Cornwall. But it is also not polite to speak about that, for fear
of
upsetting the housing market.

Radon gas is the bigger problem here in Cornwall Franz. But we can
get our
houses tested for radioactivity free of charge.

My humble apologies. I boobed. I was intending to refer to the radon
problem. I don't know how the tritium slipped in.

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:
"Paul F" wrote in message
...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

And uranium is radioactive and hence carcinogenic :-)

As is tritium. Think of all those trutium-laden granite houses in
Cornwall. But it is also not polite to speak about that, for fear
of upsetting the housing market.

Radon gas is the bigger problem here in Cornwall Franz. But we can
get our houses tested for radioactivity free of charge.

My humble apologies. I boobed. I was intending to refer to the radon
problem. I don't know how the tritium slipped in.

There are quite a few elements involved (including radioactive lead) but no
tritium (have you beed drinking?).

http://www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:32:31 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:16:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:01:45 +0100, "Oo"
wrote:

THANKS to those who responded with *useful* and informative
info.

I believe my response was both useful and informative. If my
advice
is followed, it will help you to avoid being prosecuted.
:-)

And I believe in the tooth fairy.

LOL still hoping to find a silver sixpence under your pillow?

The fairy cheated me. I only won threepence per tooth.

but in those days for threepence you could buy a pint and have
change
for the tram ride home :-)
I find it hard to believe that beer was only a shilling a pint, when
I
left school.

The students' favourite in Cape Town was Castle Special at 11d per
quart. Students did not waste their time drinking pints.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.

However something such as the failure of the cooling system resulting in a
partial meltdown of the reactor's core will certainly lead to the release of
radioactive gases into the atmosphere. This does happen - with catastrophic
consequences.