Lazy gravel drive?

In message , harry writes

Point of order.... salt used for de-icing paths etc. may cause damage to trees/shrubs through underlying roots.

Reply to
Tim Lamb
Loading thread data ...

+1

Smoking was supposed to be 'good for us' at one point and few saw any issues (outside the obvious) when digging coal, working with asbestos or even playing with mercury (as I did in the classroom). Even when we (now) know that these things can be 'dangerous' (increase the risk of us dying prematurely by some degree), not everyone exposed to them will die (prematurely) but who want's to take the chance?

;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Simple chemical analysis is no good, look at graphite and diamond

Reply to
soup

Why do you people persist in trying to fund execptions to general rules or examples that are apples and oranges, in order not to actually answer the question.

Carbon once oxides, has only two forms, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.

Neither of them are coal graphite or diamond.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The link you posted to the HPA document on sodium chlorate says it was banned under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Googling for that protocol brings up the relevant web site

formatting link
. There is a search box in the top RH corner. Putting halon into the box produces screeds of hits, so it works well as a search facility. Putting chlorate into the search box produces no hits at all, from which I conclude they don't mention it, and that one K. Foxall, who produced the HPA document, is talking bollocks.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

I think that seems to be the case: Sodium Chlorate has no known ozone implications at all

I thought the general reason for the ban was more about it being a handy oxidant for home made bombs...

You know, the more I look at this, the more it looks like Chlorate was banned for reasons that are simply not made public. The Montreal Protocol makes no mention of it, so why IS it banned?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I think that's one of the arguments against sodium chlorate. Plus persistence in the soil.

Reply to
GB

Nope nothing, unless it causes Arthritis?.....

Reply to
tony sayer

For the uses which its recommended for, its a bonus. They used to spray it along the train tracks.

And, in the days of steam, burn the embankments and cuttings off as well.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

thought it was banned because of its flammability and because it would not degrade for a number of years.

Reply to
critcher

I am sure once the tories realise they can give us freedom from such bans we can get them to lead us out. Think of all the driveways they could use it on.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

I am not 'talking' about oxides or anything else. All I was getting at was you can't use simple chemical analysis (of the 'it's just X with a Y'). Sort of actually agreeing with you TNP but if you insist on railing at everyone who doesn't parrot what TNP 'says' exactly then so be it.

Reply to
soup

35mm film can and some jetex fuse.
Reply to
charles

Pfft. Kids today won't know what Jetex is, or what a 35mm film can is for that matter. ;-)

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

Sad, innit! Incidentally, what _was_ Jetex fuel made of?

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Unicorn snot I think. :-)

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

Oh..thats on the net somewhere.something perchlorate IIRC.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

"an exotic blend of guanidine nitrate, 2,4-dinitroresorcinol, and some other hard-to-find chemicals. "

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.