You seem to have missed what I found funny and ironic. That you were still moaning about the EU in the same post that you state they have just given a licence for your favourite weedkiller.Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Alan
Hogdon powder ban
- Thread starter rookstorm
- Start date
You seem to have missed what I found funny and ironic. That you were still moaning about the EU in the same post that you state they have just given a licence for your favourite weedkiller.Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Alan
And, more importantly, come the great day all these EU laws will become British Laws.
Now, looking at how each year you are looking at only 20-30 new “clauses” with legislation amendments and 10-12 new Laws, how long do you think it will take to change anything?
Stan
Odders
Well-Known Member
Two-thirds of Europeans support a ban on glyphosate, the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world’s history, according to a new Yougov poll.
A prohibition on the herbicide ingredient was backed by three-quarters of Italians, 70% of Germans, 60% of French and 56% of Britons, in a survey of more than 7,000 people across the EU’s five biggest states.
Up to 150 MEPs in Strasbourg are expected to give urine samples today and tomorrow to see if they contain residues of the ingredient, ahead of a symbolic vote on prohibition this Wednesday.
Previous tests have found traces of the residue in the urine of people from 18 different European countries, and in over 60% of breads sold in the UK.
The Green MEP Bart Staes told the Guardian that the MEPs’ test was inspired by a recent “Urinal 2015” test which detected glyphosate in Germany’s 14 best-selling beers, stirring public unease.
So as brexit voters would say, we won get over it
---
Some 9.4m tonnes of glyphosate have been applied to crops since 1974, enough to spray half a pound of Roundup onto every cultivated acre of land on the planet
The outcome of polls means little except that the 'winning' argument got their online support better organised than the 'losers'.
There is NO solid scientific evidence linking gylphosate to cancer in humans & the one used by REACH to outlaw chemicals used to produce propellants is both tenuous & duplicitous, as a near identical chemical is used by propellant manufacturers within Europe.
Of course it's OK because no studies have yet found any links to cancer, or perhaps those studies have yet to be undertaken...
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Alan
What I was finding ironic was the conjectural figure of 56% arising from an equally conjectural opinion that Glyphosate "probably was carcinogenic". At least now that the evidence has been examined there was none to support this hypothesis, but the matter should not have arisen in the first place in the absence of established facts. It does cast doubt on other product bans such as Hogdgons.
Whether the EU and Brexit is a good or bad thing I'm happy to agree to differ on.
Indeed.
I know this will be seen by most of the SD membership as simply sour grapes on the part of "Remainers" but I truly believe 90% of those who voted for Brexit will be dead before anything approaching their vision of a brave new sunny Upland-lit UK; unencumbered by the perceived ills of the EU, is even glimpsed so what then the liklihood of reversing a ban on Varget rifle powder that impacts such a minuscule percentage of this Isle's population?
If things continue to head in the direction we see as of writing you won't need to worry about burn rates and temperature stability as you won't have a rifle.
K
Last edited:
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Yes
Theres been a massive increase in cancer over the last 30 years and it now surpasses heart disease as the most likely way you will die.
The increase in cancer is being attributed to intensive farming and pollution.
This is just another straw on the back. The only independent testing as suggested theres a problem, the testing backed by the manufacturors said there isn't?
Reminds me of the 70s when BAT were defending smoking.
Are they banning it to give the EU and economic advantage? If so good
Are they banning it to give us safer food to eat and reduce impact on wildlife? If so good
Are they banning chemicals with suspected linked to cancer? If so good
It doesn't remind me of when tobacco companies were defending smoking. It's not a comparable situation at all. In the 70s there was plenty of very strong scientific evidence of large numbers of people dying as a result of smoking. There appears to be zero evidence of any human being harmed by the chemical in question in nitro powders (2,4, DNT).
So to answer your questions:
Are they banning it to give the EU an economic advantage? No, not really. They are banning it to give an advantage to European chemical companies and a disadvantage to European citizens. You won't find many economists who think that protectionism is a good thing.
Are they banning it to give us safer food and reduce impact on wildlife? Again, no. There is no suggestion, even theoretical, that it has any effect on food or wildlife.....exxcept to the extent that you are unable to shoot wildlife with it.
Are they banning chemicals with suspected links to cancer? Er....only selectively, frequently where it can be used as an excuse for a protectionist restriction on free trade. As an example, this chemical is only suspected of causing cancer and evidence of it actually causing cancer appears to be absent, whereas we know that chemicals in processed meat definitely cause cancer without any doubt, we know what cancers are caused and the exact molecular pathway by ehich it happens - yet there is no restriction whatever on those chemicals. Perhaps because they are found in products almost exclusively produced in the EU.
Cancer is a huge health problem, but nobody believes that banning this chemical will have any measurable human health benefit. The fact that lab animals can be induced to develop cancer by exposure to extremely high doses of a chemical does not mean that humas are at risk.
So to answer your questions:
Are they banning it to give the EU an economic advantage? No, not really. They are banning it to give an advantage to European chemical companies and a disadvantage to European citizens. You won't find many economists who think that protectionism is a good thing.
Are they banning it to give us safer food and reduce impact on wildlife? Again, no. There is no suggestion, even theoretical, that it has any effect on food or wildlife.....exxcept to the extent that you are unable to shoot wildlife with it.
Are they banning chemicals with suspected links to cancer? Er....only selectively, frequently where it can be used as an excuse for a protectionist restriction on free trade. As an example, this chemical is only suspected of causing cancer and evidence of it actually causing cancer appears to be absent, whereas we know that chemicals in processed meat definitely cause cancer without any doubt, we know what cancers are caused and the exact molecular pathway by ehich it happens - yet there is no restriction whatever on those chemicals. Perhaps because they are found in products almost exclusively produced in the EU.
Cancer is a huge health problem, but nobody believes that banning this chemical will have any measurable human health benefit. The fact that lab animals can be induced to develop cancer by exposure to extremely high doses of a chemical does not mean that humas are at risk.
So how much of this massive increase in cancer over the last 30 years can be directly attributed to exposure to reloading powders?
Ian.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
I've bought in November and hoarded four tubs of H414!
Chasey
Well-Known Member
That's like asking how many cancer cases were directly linked to Benson and Hedges
PS I have stockpiled Vaget and will probably have enough to last me till I pop my clogs of cancer
COuld be the reloading powder, could be GM crops ot diesiel particulates or could be I smoked since I was 15
Odders
Well-Known Member
The biggest two causes of increases in cancer rates are people living longer & obesity.That's like asking how many cancer cases were directly linked to Benson and Hedges
PS I have stockpiled Vaget and will probably have enough to last me till I pop my clogs of cancer
COuld be the reloading powder, could be GM crops ot diesiel particulates or could be I smoked since I was 15
Chemical vectors play a tiny part, apart from all the crap in cigarettes of course (I was on 50 a day until I stopped on February 4th 2009, so I'm allowed to be anti smoking
).I've nothing against regulating harmful chemicals but for the minuscule amounts used in propellants, the EU is taking the wee.
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
Yes, but if a substance is harmful, you have to draw the line somewhere. Far better just to prohibit its use than say oh well you can use a little bit in this product and a little bit in that... then you suddenly find that someone accidentally puts a little too much into another product and you’ve defeated the purpose of regulating the substance in the first place. There are alternatives - and in any case developing new loads is a perfect excuse to get out shooting more... Win-win 
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Just bought the last two tubs of H414 from my local shop. So now I've six plus a part used one. That'll see my shooting out.
Good move! If you like ball powders, H414 is one of the best around with few alternatives in this type / burning rate. Ramshot Big Game is one of the few I can think off the top. Nobelsport Vectan SP12 might also fill this slot assuming this range becomes more widely distributed post-Reach.
Is that the same stuff as Agent Orange that the yanks showered Vietnam with to kill vegetation?
Removing it from wood presertative has cost farming millions with rotten fences and buildings
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Agent Orange was 2-4-5T, it used to be one of the active ingredients in SBK Brushwood killer along with 2,4D.
2,4D is still in use as an ingredient of selective grassland herbicides such as Blaster etc.
Last edited:
I was once told that the main reason for 2-4-5-T getting banned was that the drug lobby was/is so strong, and 2-4-5-T was the most effective way to destroy illegal Cannabis crops in US forests.
Similar threads
