Creosote

[Mr Potato Head]

Yeah, I'm with you on this Barney, let's bring back all those useful products that they've banned, like paraquat and asbestos.

It's not like anyone ever died because an unscrupulous employer decided to cut corners and tell people that it wasn't necessary to wear a mask, or 'forget' to tell them about the toxicity of a product they were using because it might be fiscally convenient to avoid paying for protective gear.

[alan refail]

...and DDT, and Lindane!

...and why not send the kids down the pits again? Never did me any harm.

I repeat what I said in my last post:

Since, I suspect, the vast majority of forum members are "amateurs", it seems irrelevant, if not downright irresponsible to promote (?) the use of a banned substance.

But, in the interests of fair-play, I offer the following link on Tanalith E:

http://www.archchemicals.com/Fed/WOOD/P ... alised.htm

Alan

[Cider Boys]

What a ridiculous and sarcastic reply by both Mr Potato Head and Alan. Creosote is NOT banned; it is still in everyday commercial use so your comments about unscrupulous employers are irrelevant. It is only banned from sale to amateurs. As for asbestos etc. these were proved to be highly dangerous to humans and rightly now have restrictions on there use, but what harm has creosote done to anyone? Why not BAN amateurs from lighting bonfires- they can get burnt. Perhaps we should go back to having our petrol and diesel filled by a professional garage attendant because there is far more danger in handling both fuels than ever there is with creosote. Next time you wish to cross the road you had better make sure there is a Lollypop lady to help you cross.

I have copied an extract from the HSE regarding Creosote.

I have used creosote products for many years - do I need to worry?

The EU Scientific committee considered a study, which showed that there was some evidence of creosote causing skin cancer in animals, and as such concluded that there remained a risk to amateur users of creosote. This recommendation was based on results from a lifetime's daily skin contact with creosote, so it is highly unlikely that the occasional contact with creosote that an amateur user might have, will be of any significant concern. This action has been taken as a precaution.
The conditions of approval, and hence the product label, for all amateur products state that suitable protective clothing such as coveralls, synthetic rubber/PVC gloves and eye protection should be worn. This will also have reduced exposure to the products.

In essence they BANNED it from amateur use solely as a precaution.
Perhaps Alan and Mr Potato Head they should BAN gardening for amateurs as a precaution against tetanus, there is far more likely hood of contracting tetanus than ever getting skin cancer from creosote.

Barney

[peter]

This is getting perhaps a little entrenched.

Personally I like cresosote, there was a certain satisfaction after doing the fence in the smell. It works damm well at preserving wood and it is available as a byproduct of processing coal into coke.

The "credicote" creosote replacement I bought last year was pathetic. It smelt vile, it did not coat the timber well, spills and drips strangely lingered longer than cresosote and it's water repellent properties have not lasted at all.

A "water based wood treatment" I did my shed with is even worse, it repels any other treatments, but allows water in and has flaked off in exposed areas. To add insult to injury it went a vile colour, it is more like very poor emulsion paint than wood treatment.

My mention of cadmium seems to have deflected JB down a side alley . It was the only "poison" I could remember clearly as persisting at old coking plants and the land under such works was exposed to all the liqued spillages possible from the mass processing of coal into coke and gas. Please bear in mind some of these sites were in use from Victorian days to the 1960's, the tonnages of coal and the gallonage of liqued resulting from condensation during gas collection must have been immense over that time.

The whole end to end process results in the concentration of compounds that at trace levels are harmless, but which are persistent. I pass every day such a site and it has automatic collection and storage kit to drain out and isolate "contaminated ground water".

Whilst I like creosote I would not want to work with it every day and I certainly would not be comfortable having a garden on top of land that had been soaked in the stuff. To press the point I favour old sleepers for rasied beds and greenhouse foundations.

To close, what exactly are the risks of the constituents of the creosote replacements?
Are they genuinely less harmful than creosote?
What is their track record?
Short I imagine, whereas some half-decent research into say, shed manufacturers could probably prove or disprove the dangers of creosote, which as it is still allowed in some uses are probebly minimal.

[Compo]

I think it is all about balance, it is like the smoking argument, 'some people won't get caer from smoking', but it is well researched that some do.

Creosote is probably ok for ornamental fence panels etc in non vegetable growing gardens. Wickes make an alterative, which smells good, but does not last as long as creosote. There is always going to be an argument between the organics and the chemical users. But I don't think we can afford to be as blase as some are making out to be on here.

I think the watchword here is 'sensible' and a little measured caution goes a long way. I would not use creosote near where I am going to eat, but hey, thats my view, others can eat if they want to.

[Johnboy]

Mr PH,
Can you give me the figures of the amount of people who have been seriously affected by Creosote. You seem to love throwing your two pennyworth and not really to say anything that makes much sense.
Nobody wishes to advocate the use of Asbestos and perhaps it would help you to know that Paraquat was NOT banned. The manufacturers of Paraquat decided that the sales in UK did not warrant the huge expenses they would incur when the licence has to be renewed and they allowed the licence lapse. It is still produced and used in many places around the world to great effect.
The information that you give by sending people to Wikipedia is wrong because it has absolutely nothing to do with the UK and European Law which is what is being discussed on this thread.
Peter,
I realize that Cadmium was a blind but the point I was trying to make is that if a Gas Works has been on a site for over 100 years there is a very great concentration of real nasties but the use of Cadmium as a plating medium presents no problem for most of us but just the odd few of us who have such an aversion to anything chemical. Strangely just about everything we use or touch is a chemical so they must tremble most of their worrying little lives.
Alan,
The use of DDT in the right place is nothing bad and Lindane was the chemical that caused DDT to get it's bad name. Certainly Lindane should have been banned long before it was.
You will note that the anti-chemical people have got at the continent of Africa and it is now showing up, as of last year, the return of the Locust in very high densities. Malaria kills thousands of people on that continent for the lack of the use of DDT.
Strangely South Africa reintroduced and is still using DDT and the deaths from Malaria have decreased dramatically. So far as I know the deaths from the reuse of DDT are unknown.
Certainly some chemical are downright evil and it is when they get into the wrong hands that the trouble begins. That is why Creosote, although quite inoffensive, has been taken out of the hands of the amateur but left in the hands of the professionals. I agree that the vast majority of subscribers to this forum are not professionals. So it can not be so innocuous otherwise there would be an outright ban.
JB.

[Mr Potato Head]

Actually, my (admittedly sarcastic) point was to say that to say that because a material is available for industrial use, rather than amateur doesn't mean that the actual users will be protected. There are unscrupulous employers that flagrantly ignore the most simple health & safety precautions at the expense of their employees health. So, Barney, I'm not sure how my comments are irrelevant...

My other point JB is that whilst creosote may be fine (and I for one always rather enjoyed the smell of a freshly creosoted fence) is it really actually problematic to ban it when there are safer alternatives?

Barney is keen to quote the HSE, so I will too.

The EU has had concerns regarding creosote for years, why is it only now that these products are being banned?

A recent study has led a EU scientific committee (the CSTEE) to conclude that creosote has a greater potential to cause cancer than previously thought, and that the magnitude of the risk gives them clear reasons for concern.

MAY cause cancer, not WILL. As it's banned, perhaps some energy will go into creating products that WON'T, rather than blindly continuing with the sort of attitude that says 'Never did me any harm...'

And some light reading for you about skin cancer.

Cancer Research UK (In general)

Occupational risks (from a peer-reviewed scientific journal) - which cites 1608 deaths from occupational related skin cancer deaths over 6 years. You can download the entire article for your perusal.

[submariner]

Hate to say this gentlemen. You are obviously intelligent with erudite argument, but it's altAr. It does spoil the argument somehow for me!

[Cider Boys]

Bluntly by question is what bad results have been experienced due to creosote used with common sense. As I previously stated I worked for many years for a very large employer whose staff were in daily contact with creosote/tar and knew of no one who had contacted skin cancer as a result of this exposure. Pole testing included digging around the base of poles and liberally applying creosote, men did this work for 40 years with no ill effect. However I did come across colleagues that had contacted skin cancer due to working outdoors in sunlight. Mr Potato Head again, should we ban gardening for amateurs because of risks of skin cancer due to sunlight or does common sense apply as it should have done regarding creosote use?

Barney

[richard p]

what sense is there in banning its use for amateurs, who will use it very occasionally, and allow "professional " use which could involve all day use every day

[Johnboy]

Hi Mr PH,
It would be fine if a true alternative was found but there are many products that purport to be wood preservers which are nothing of the sort.
In Farming fence posts suffer from wood boring insects and so do wooden barn cladding's and I do not know of a product that preserves wood and also prevents incursion from wood boring insects. Quite frankly I want something that works not something that looks pretty.
With Creosote, even the use by the rank amateur, is only used at the utmost only very occasionally and you can slap up figures about skin cancers all day long and they bear very little meaning.
It should be down to common sense which it would appear the various committees lack.
It is like the woman on this forum some time back who objected to smelling tobacco smoke from people when she was walking to the supermarket as it was injurious to her health. She would not even accept that every motor car and lorry that passed her on the same journey were pumping out more obnoxious chemicals that would do her far greater harm than tobacco smoke.
Somehow the people who are anti chemical have a heightened sense of imagination and are apt to blow things up out of all proportion.
I will continue to use Creosote for as long as there is not an outright ban because I feel the whole episode is a storm in a teacup and I have reached an age when having been in contact with it all my life I do not feel that it represents the hazards it is supposed to.
JB.

[Mr Potato Head]

To be fair, I'll admit to being more than a little pedantic on this one.

Most of our arguments boil down to a couple of reactions. There are those that like to cite personal experience, and those that like to cite scientific research. Both are valid, and should not be taken in lieu of the other.

I think it's fair to say that anyone reading the popular press would be hard-pressed to get a realistic sense of proportion about things like the risks of chemicals / viruses / gun crime etc. so let's try and maintain that proportion here. I for one, apologise for going a bit hairy (this time).

[Cider Boys]

I do appreciate your recent contribution Mr Potato Head.

One pedantic point however I would like to mention is that it is often implied that scientists advocate this or that ban, but surely they do the research and in the case of creosote responsibly concluded that there was a slight probability that high daily exposures could cause skin cancer to animals. It was the bureaucrats who decide what to do with the scientific findings and in this case it is my belief that it would have been far fairer to advise people on the possible dangers and what precautions to take rather than take the ‘lets ban it all’ attitude that is now far too prevalent.

Barney

[Jenny Green]

I think we also maybe need to cut the beaurocrats some slack in this area too. We live in a highly litigious society, with everyone willing to blame someone else and sue at the drop of a hat. Now imagine if some idiot were to go painting themselves with the stuff on a daily basis (you never know!) and develop a skin problem, there would always be a lawyer willing to help them with their personal injury claim. And any research that showed a detrimental effect would be used as evidence. Governments are always erring on the side of caution because they're first in the firing line when things go wrong. Easier for them to ban something than be accused of not acting in response to research findings.
It's all very well saying we should use our common sense, but not so practical in a society where people have ceased taking responsibility for their actions.

[Compo]

Here here Jenny, the opposing sides in this thread will not be able to persuade each other that either is right.

Common sense should prevail, but it no longer appears to.

Compo