Hogdon powder ban

OK, just for the dummies like me! ...... What component of the powders in question fails the test?

It relates to certain compounds, some used in burn rate stabilisers and other related compounds which the EU are or have already banned or strictly controlled. DBP or Dibutyl Phthalate commonly used in plasticisers is one of them as it is known to be an endocrine disruptor and can be found, allegedly, in Hogdon powders. When one examines some of the harmful chemicals found within primers and powders, it's probably overdue that safer compounds are found so I can se the sense in replacing these. The difficulty is that where primers are concerned, styphates are proving rather difficult to find suitable alternatives for.
 
So what are the Euro & other manufacturers using, or won't they tell?

All manufactures have to supply, on request a "Safety Data Sheet" which lists all the chemicals, components and their risks and hazards. A manufacturer cannot receive UN certification without producing a SDS. No certification no transportation.
 
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.
 
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?

From what it states in the EU policy document, this looks more like trade protectionism, rather than any real concern over the toxicity of chemicals that are only used in minute quantities.
Heck; vitamin C is toxic if consumed in excessive amounts & there's no talk of an impending ban on it, or for that matter lead styphnate primers.
 
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?


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?
 
What strikes me as somewhat strange is there's no apparent proposal to ban the MANUFACTURE of this powder!

Surely those at greatest risk are involved in the production of Hodgdon powder or are all reloaders secret Varget sniffers?

K
 
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?

My concept of democracy? Simple:- When a member nation votes to leave the EU the other member states should respect this and ease the transition to mutually beneficial post Brexit arrangements.

Instead we have petulant reactions from people such as EU chief J.C. Juncker, whom no member of the public got to vote on, claiming that "Britain must be punished", claims from the EU that after (net) funding them since we joined that they are entitled to £ Bn as a "divorce bill". This is compounded by an apparent lack of any valuation on EU assets so that they might buy out our share.

Glyphosate, these cancer allegations would appear to be conjectural and in any case seem to centre on the tallow-amine carrier solution rather than the Glyphosate itself. The tallow-amine is apparently absent from some formulations such as RoundUP Biactive.

It has to be remembered that Glyphosate has an exemplary safety record compared to the Paraquat & Diquat herbicides that it replaced, it would be a great shame to loose it without unequivocal evidence that is harmful.
 
If this thread seems to be diverging I apologise, I seem to remember being party to joining "A Common Market", but I have never any recollection of being polled on the UK joining "Union of Europe", The UK should pay whatever we signed up to in good faith , and only pay when the due date comes around, If some thing hasn't even kicked off yet we shouldn't be making any contributions to these schemes.
 
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.
 
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?


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”.
 
Any peer reviewed references for the cancer claim?

No idea. The claim came from the World health Organisation

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Q&A_Glyphosate.pdf

The EFSA said its not dangerous but their conclusions were based on tests carried out by the manufacturers of Glyphosate's. So make of that what you will.


I personaly have no in depth knowledge on this as its a product we use rarely for treatment of plant growth in masonry.

We now use Benzokonium Chloride and Boron (B10RH) as a masonory biocide but its 10X the cost. That said we find it far more effective on lichens than Glyphosate

The big one for us is Permethrin. Which was on World Health Organisation list of the sefest and most effective treatments???? Then it was banned Permethrin - Wikipedia

I still cant find the official details on why but I found data linking it to Thyroyd cancer and Hormonal defects.

Which makes me think the WHO talk a lot of bol@cks?
 
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”.


Specific to Roundup (which we use)


  1. Glyphosate is rarely used on its own, but as part of a chemical cocktail, for instance with the trade name Roundup or Weedol.
  2. These formulations are potentially far more dangerous. Dr Robin Mesnage of Kings College London, writes "We know Roundup, the commercial name of glyphosate-based herbicides, contains many other chemicals, which when mixed together are 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on its own."

As for the contradicting data? see my post above.
 
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.


I suppose but I don't know anyone who died of lead poisoning in the 70s yet they banned leaded petrol? Go figure

Also for the eurocrats pension and general EU debt thing.... Theres the small problem of our signed contract where we agreed to continue paying should we leave the EU.

When they questiond Lord Kurr (who helped to draft Article 50) as to why we agreed to this, his response was "it simply never occurred to him we would be stupid enough to leave ";)

I actualy don't like Lord Kurr one bit, but that did make me laugh.
 
Back
Top