OK, just for the dummies like me! ...... What component of the powders in question fails the test?
OK, just for the dummies like me! ...... What component of the powders in question fails the test?
OK, just for the dummies like me! ...... What component of the powders in question fails the test?
2,4 Di Nitro Toluene is the chemical most powders on the banned list are using as a burn rate stabiliser
So what are the Euro & other manufacturers using, or won't they tell?
Bring on Brexit!
So you'r in support of continued use of toxic and dangerous chemicals?
The banned products cause growth and birth defects in mamels
Is your position post Brexit we should continue to support these types of products?
I talk as someone directly affected in my professional capacity (timber treatment industry) and as a deer stalker using the powders.
I'm my business we were told we were using safe products and low mammalian toxisity was touted as being that of Suger.
Turns out to be a lie. LD50 is not the reliable test for safety it was touted to be.
The risk factor and health implications for me and my workforce could be significant.
So I for one was pleased to see the products banned.
I wonder in 20 years time will they look back at the bad old days like we look back on Asbestos in break pads.
Actually what I'm in favour of is an open democratic process where matters are properly researched beforehand.
It is not clear from some of these EU directives whether or not they have originated out of political expediency such as keeping onside extremist groups such as the Green Party where PR voting has given them undue influence.
Chasey, where do you stand on the EU's Glyphosate ban?
Actually what I'm in favour of is an open democratic process where matters are properly researched beforehand.
It is not clear from some of these EU directives whether or not they have originated out of political expediency such as keeping onside extremist groups such as the Green Party where PR voting has given them undue influence.
Chasey, where do you stand on the EU's Glyphosate ban?
I don't know what your concept of democracy is
Glyphosate
Its carconegenic and it affects the function of the liver and kidneys.
Its widely used on crops which are genticly modified to resist it but manage to retain it
30% of bread in the UK contains traces of Glyphosate
The other big issue is how it reacts with other chemicals. Glyphosate in common products like "Roundup" is apparently some 1000 X more toxic than as a stand alone product.
treated soil can retain it for years and its apparently having a profound affect on earthworms
So its pretty nasty
Its a tough issue. We need pesticides and herbicides to maintain our current cheep bulk food production, but rates of Cancer have gone up expedentaily in recent years?
SO I suppose the question is, is cheep food worth getting cancer for?
The EU is about the most democratic organisation on the planit. 800 million people elected the 750 MEPs that represent 27 countries. The Isle of white has three MEPs representing its interests Richard Ashworth, Nirj Deva and Daniel Hannan. The EU commission proposes legislation then it has to be debated ,amended and passed or rejected by the 750 MEPs. The UK has 78 MEPs so dispite there being 27 nation states (arguably 28) we have something like 11% control of the vote. This is almost exactly the same as France and Italy and Germany has 96 MEPs (Germany population 81.5 mill UK 65 Mill hence the diferance) so if you include Poland and Spain those six countries have control over legislation over the rest. With the close links between UK and Poland (they have never voted against us) we are more than a match for Germany in influencing the vote.
After the EU parliament agrees the legislation it has to go to the Councle of Ministers for final approval. They look at things like environmental impact.
Finaly ANY legislation comes to the UK where the UK government passes it.
The UK government has powers of Veto and also opt outs on issues such as this the euro, the Schengen area and some areas of justice and home affairs policy.
I don't know what your concept of democracy is but in my view, legislation which passes the test of 27 nation states is surely about as democratic as it gets. I am frankly amazed they get anything passed.
Glyphosate
Its carconegenic and it affects the function of the liver and kidneys.
Its widely used on crops which are genticly modified to resist it but manage to retain it
30% of bread in the UK contains traces of Glyphosate
The other big issue is how it reacts with other chemicals. Glyphosate in common products like "Roundup" is apparently some 1000 X more toxic than as a stand alone product.
treated soil can retain it for years and its apparently having a profound affect on earthworms
So its pretty nasty
Its a tough issue. We need pesticides and herbicides to maintain our current cheep bulk food production, but rates of Cancer have gone up expedentaily in recent years?
SO I suppose the question is, is cheep food worth getting cancer for?
Any peer reviewed references for the cancer claim?
Really?
"Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller brand, has been given a clean bill of health by the UN’s joint meeting on pesticides residues (JMPR), two days before a crunch EU vote on whether to relicense it.
The co-analysis by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation found that the chemical was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet”.
Every chemical IN EXCESS is a poison (including oxygen and water)! The science is in determining what constitutes excess. LD50 cannot be a determinate -only a rough indicator-, as this is tested in isolation on animals that have never been exposed to anything! (In fact a laboratory rats metabolism bears little resemblance to that of those found under your chicken shed). Synergistic effects are not taken into account, nor are immunities. Arsenic can kill you BUT the body can tolerate sub-terminal doses, those of you who are cannibalistic never eat a Cornish miner, he is unfit for human consumption due to accumulated arsenic!
Give us data of a survey taken of shooters versus non-shooters of identical ages, occupations and circumstances, then we may have something to be concerned about.
A lot of the legislation regarding European products versus the Rest of the Worlds' is an unethical -if not unlawful- protection of markets, and profits.
As Finnbear270 states we should only pay that to which we are committed, less our share of the assets at market valuation, nothing towards the pensions of Eurocrats other than what we have already contributed, and as for being bound by Euro Courts forget it.