Thinking of buying Parasene Pro - Weed Wand (with trolley) 563 -DONT!
Steve
carrying a canister of gas let alone a bottle because it's just not
made well at all. A sack barrow design would have been better. Very
poor welding ensured it was next to useless.
The flame gun itself seemed OK but the ignition is very suspect
(piezo)
As for burning weeds? Funnily enough some weeds just don't burn and
even more just don't die for long. Not to mention the damage to
insects like ladybirds and the like. All in all don't waste your
money. I was told the cansiter weed wands were useless, but the big
boy is too.
Pro-Weed Wand (with trolley) 563
Status: Currently In Stock
https://www.parasene.com/vshop/details.asp?prodID=191
This Flame weed burner works on the same principle as the best selling
550 Weed-Wand, but just on a bigger scale, Its powerful 1300'c flame
kills weeds cell structure leaving the desired area weed free in
24hours. This Professional model, Designed for use in large gardens,
around farms and in public areas. Ideal for public authorities ,
people with holiday trailers, private gardeners with long gravel
drives and others who have areas where weeds are difficult or
expensive to control.
Specifications:
Uses standard gas bottle in 7kg to 20kg canisters.
1kg of gas provides approximately 1 hour of continuous use.
1-Year Manufacturer Guarantee
Think I might try spraying petrol/vinegar/diesel on the gravel drive.
I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.
Any issues with this do you think?
Steve
PS: I also tried to burn the stem of a sunflower growing in the crack
between house and path. Burnt it twice and it's still growing strong.
In fact of all the sunflower bird seed I planted..this was a stray
seed that got swept in to a crack and has grown about 30% better than
the next best sunflower. Look like they are all about to flower soon
(around 40 inches high)
Also just picked my first runner beans too..each night just go out and
grab a handful. How cool is this.
Toms are looking good though all still green.
Does this mean im a farmer now? lol
Jake Dollard
"Steve" <maypo...@none.com> wrote in message
news:bcj595lvt00200f3q...@4ax.com...
Hazards with petrol dousing seem to speak for themselves. If you fancy being
in the centre of a volatile explosive cloud then fire away (pun intended).
In the case of any injury/ damage, I think that a case for gross negligence
is pre-proven. It only takes one spark!
Diesel also is inflammable, though far less so than petrol. You may find it
damaging to vehicle tyres, as well as turning your drive into a potential
skidpan. It is intended to drive vehicles, not to be released into the
environment in it's raw state. You may well find another prosecution in the
offing in case of it's entry into watercourses, public roads etc. It's
effect on tarmac is quite quickly damaging.
As for the vinegar I have doubts about it's efficacy.
What's wrong with one of the established weedkiller chemicals if you must.
Martin Brown
> Complete and utter rubbish. The trolley is not even suitable for
> carrying a canister of gas let alone a bottle because it's just not
> made well at all. A sack barrow design would have been better. Very
> poor welding ensured it was next to useless.
>
> The flame gun itself seemed OK but the ignition is very suspect
> (piezo)
>
> As for burning weeds? Funnily enough some weeds just don't burn and
Wet plant material doesn't. You should only need to scorch it a bit to
kill off the tops, and the roots remain unaffected by heat.
> even more just don't die for long. Not to mention the damage to
> insects like ladybirds and the like. All in all don't waste your
> money. I was told the cansiter weed wands were useless, but the big
> boy is too.
It is a failing of flame based weedkillers. Burning weeds like this also
creates dioxins which are not especially good for you.
>
> Pro-Weed Wand (with trolley) 563
> Status: Currently In Stock
> https://www.parasene.com/vshop/details.asp?prodID=191
> This Flame weed burner works on the same principle as the best selling
> 550 Weed-Wand, but just on a bigger scale, Its powerful 1300'c flame
> kills weeds cell structure leaving the desired area weed free in
> 24hours. This Professional model, Designed for use in large gardens,
> around farms and in public areas. Ideal for public authorities ,
> people with holiday trailers, private gardeners with long gravel
> drives and others who have areas where weeds are difficult or
> expensive to control.
>
> Specifications:
> Uses standard gas bottle in 7kg to 20kg canisters.
> 1kg of gas provides approximately 1 hour of continuous use.
> 1-Year Manufacturer Guarantee
>
>
> Think I might try spraying petrol/vinegar/diesel on the gravel drive.
Unlicenced use. You should think very carefully about the flammability
and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).
Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
> I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.
>
> Any issues with this do you think?
Glyphosate is much more environmentally friendly than everything except
the vinegar (and chances are that was industrially manufactured).
Regards,
Martin Brown
Steve
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> Complete and utter rubbish. The trolley is not even suitable for
>> carrying a canister of gas let alone a bottle because it's just not
>> made well at all. A sack barrow design would have been better. Very
>> poor welding ensured it was next to useless.
>>
>> The flame gun itself seemed OK but the ignition is very suspect
>> (piezo)
>>
>> As for burning weeds? Funnily enough some weeds just don't burn and
>
>Wet plant material doesn't. You should only need to scorch it a bit to
>kill off the tops, and the roots remain unaffected by heat.
>
>> even more just don't die for long. Not to mention the damage to
>> insects like ladybirds and the like. All in all don't waste your
>> money. I was told the cansiter weed wands were useless, but the big
>> boy is too.
>
>It is a failing of flame based weedkillers. Burning weeds like this also
>creates dioxins which are not especially good for you.
Yes I dint think I'll resort to burning again.
>>
>> Pro-Weed Wand (with trolley) 563
>> Status: Currently In Stock
>> https://www.parasene.com/vshop/details.asp?prodID=191
>> This Flame weed burner works on the same principle as the best selling
>> 550 Weed-Wand, but just on a bigger scale, Its powerful 1300'c flame
>> kills weeds cell structure leaving the desired area weed free in
>> 24hours. This Professional model, Designed for use in large gardens,
>> around farms and in public areas. Ideal for public authorities ,
>> people with holiday trailers, private gardeners with long gravel
>> drives and others who have areas where weeds are difficult or
>> expensive to control.
>>
>> Specifications:
>> Uses standard gas bottle in 7kg to 20kg canisters.
>> 1kg of gas provides approximately 1 hour of continuous use.
>> 1-Year Manufacturer Guarantee
>>
>>
>> Think I might try spraying petrol/vinegar/diesel on the gravel drive.
>
>Unlicenced use.
You don't need a licence for anything in your own garden within
reason.
> You should think very carefully about the flammability
>and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
>containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).
>
>Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
>source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
I agree but some of us can handle it safely. Others should not be
allowed anywhere near it :))
>> I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.
>>
>> Any issues with this do you think?
>
>Glyphosate is much more environmentally friendly than everything except
>the vinegar (and chances are that was industrially manufactured).
There are 1001 reasons for not using glyphosate. None of which you'll
here from the salesman who has us all duped in whatever we buy. Be it
weed killer or any other noxious chemical invented by Monsanto.
Using petrol/diesel or vinegar on a 50ft gravel drive probably only
has a handful of reasons.
The test patch I have done a few weeks back are even stevens apart
from the burning, in which a lovely little weed hads popped back up
lol
Handy tip:
Vinegar is very good for limescale in the toilet here.
Martin Brown
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:29 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You should think very carefully about the flammability
>> and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
>> containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).
>>
>> Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
>> source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
>
> I agree but some of us can handle it safely. Others should not be
> allowed anywhere near it :))
You are headed for a Darwin award.
I can just about understand an irrational fear of all "chemicals" in the
general public. But I find it hard to reconcile this with an intention
to spray petrol and/or diesel all over the place.
>>> I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.
>>>
>>> Any issues with this do you think?
>> Glyphosate is much more environmentally friendly than everything except
>> the vinegar (and chances are that was industrially manufactured).
>
> There are 1001 reasons for not using glyphosate. None of which you'll
> here from the salesman who has us all duped in whatever we buy. Be it
> weed killer or any other noxious chemical invented by Monsanto.
Glyphosate is relatively benign. Don't buy the Monsanto variant though -
any generic will do or the ex ICI variation on the same theme. Extoxnet
has the low down on all common chemicals no salesmen involved.
http://pi.ace.orst.edu/search/showPDF.s?docNum=1#xml=http://pi.ace.orst.edu/search/pdfHL.s?docNum=1
It is the wetting agents in the commercial formulations that you have to
worry about. Unless you are a green plant or a malaria parasite the
effect of the active ingredient glyphosate is almost nil.
Glyphosate is the environmentally friendly weedkiller of choice.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Steve
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:29 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> You should think very carefully about the flammability
>>> and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
>>> containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).
>>>
>>> Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
>>> source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
>>
>> I agree but some of us can handle it safely. Others should not be
>> allowed anywhere near it :))
>
>You are headed for a Darwin award.
Really? Who will be fitting enough to award it?
>I can just about understand an irrational fear of all "chemicals" in the
>general public. But I find it hard to reconcile this with an intention
>to spray petrol and/or diesel all over the place.
Try not to spoil a simple discussion by going off on a complicated
tangent.
How has a 50ft gravel drive suddenly become *all over the place*?
>>>> I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.
>>>>
>>>> Any issues with this do you think?
>>> Glyphosate is much more environmentally friendly than everything except
>>> the vinegar (and chances are that was industrially manufactured).
>>
>> There are 1001 reasons for not using glyphosate. None of which you'll
>> here from the salesman who has us all duped in whatever we buy. Be it
>> weed killer or any other noxious chemical invented by Monsanto.
>
>Glyphosate is relatively benign.
No it isn't it's a terrible substance and one we managed without for
many centuries and will continue to do so.
"Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted
plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes.
Estimated use in the U.S. is between 38 and 48 million pounds per
year. Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with
a surfactant, chemicals that help glyphosate to penetrate plant cells.
Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea,
numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The
surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more
acutely toxic than glyphosate itself the combination of the two is yet
more toxic.
Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking
that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard
categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term
toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed
stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on
reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of
abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency
of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).
In studies of people (mostly farmers) exposed to glyphosate
herbicides, exposure is associated with an increased risk of
miscarriages, premature birth, and the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
applications.
Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects,
birds, and small mammals by destroying vegetation on which they depend
for food and shelter.
In laboratory tests, glyphosate increased plants' susceptibility to
disease and reduced the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria"
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm
>Glyphosate is the environmentally friendly weedkiller of choice.
Not for anyone who cares about themselves or the planet they live on.
Not sure if you have noticed but we are dropping like flies these days
and not from old age. We may well never know just how bad all these
chemicals we produce are, but one things for sure we see the results
in our family membership lists getting shorter and shorter.
On that basis I think we have your views and you have mine. No need to
argue about it.
alan.holmes
off weeds using a flame gun, they grew back stronger than ever, the only
really effective way is so douse them in weedkiller, you could try using a
thing on the end of a long handle whose name I have forgotten!(:-(
Called something like a hoe!
Alan
"Steve" <maypo...@none.com> wrote in message
news:bcj595lvt00200f3q...@4ax.com...
Steve
<alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>They are a complete waste of time and money, I tried some years ago to kill
>off weeds using a flame gun, they grew back stronger than ever, the only
>really effective way is so douse them in weedkiller, you could try using a
>thing on the end of a long handle whose name I have forgotten!(:-(
That would be the missus.
Martin Brown
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:37:56 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:29 +0100, Martin Brown
>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should think very carefully about the flammability
>>>> and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
>>>> containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).
>>>>
>>>> Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
>>>> source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
>>> I agree but some of us can handle it safely. Others should not be
>>> allowed anywhere near it :))
>> You are headed for a Darwin award.
>
> Really? Who will be fitting enough to award it?
An organisation that records when people write themselves out of the
gene pool by doing incredibly stupid things.
>
>> I can just about understand an irrational fear of all "chemicals" in the
>> general public. But I find it hard to reconcile this with an intention
>> to spray petrol and/or diesel all over the place.
>
> Try not to spoil a simple discussion by going off on a complicated
> tangent.
>
> How has a 50ft gravel drive suddenly become *all over the place*?
>
>>>>> I made three test areas and all seem clear a week later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any issues with this do you think?
>>>> Glyphosate is much more environmentally friendly than everything except
>>>> the vinegar (and chances are that was industrially manufactured).
>>> There are 1001 reasons for not using glyphosate. None of which you'll
>>> here from the salesman who has us all duped in whatever we buy. Be it
>>> weed killer or any other noxious chemical invented by Monsanto.
>> Glyphosate is relatively benign.
>
> No it isn't it's a terrible substance and one we managed without for
> many centuries and will continue to do so.
It is a synthetic chemical. It is also extremely deadly to green plants
or anything else with a shikimic acid pathway. That does not include the
higher animals.
>
> "Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted
> plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes.
> Estimated use in the U.S. is between 38 and 48 million pounds per
> year. Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with
> a surfactant, chemicals that help glyphosate to penetrate plant cells.
>
> Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
> humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, headache, nausea,
> numbness, elevated blood pressure, and heart palpitations. The
> surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more
> acutely toxic than glyphosate itself the combination of the two is yet
> more toxic.
And which paranoid green crank page for the worried well did this screed
of bullshit come from? Oh I see below. www.mindless.org
>
> Given the marketing of glyphosate herbicides as benign, it is striking
> that laboratory studies have found adverse effects in all standard
> categories of laboratory toxicology testing. These include medium-term
> toxicity (salivary gland lesions), long-term toxicity (inflamed
> stomach linings), genetic damage (in human blood cells), effects on
> reproduction (reduced sperm counts in rats; increased frequency of
> abnormal sperm in rabbits), and carcinogenicity (increased frequency
> of liver tumors in male rats and thyroid cancer in female rats).
But hardly anything at all until they are fed grammes per kilogram of
body weight. Starting to get into the regime where stomach capacity to
eat food as well as the dose of test material becomes an issue.
To put it into context ingesting glyphosate is slightly less acutely
toxic to rats than ingesting table salt or ethanol. Noone would call
table salt or alcohol acutely toxic and expect to be taken seriously.
http://chemlabs.uoregon.edu/Safety/toxicity.html
> Glyphosate has been called "extremely persistent" by the U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency, and half lives of over 100 days have
> been measured in field tests in Iowa and New York. Glyphosate has been
> found in streams following agricultural, urban, and forestry
> applications.
It binds tightly enough to clays and soil particles that its lifetime as
an active herbicide is extremely short. The molecule may hang around for
a while in some unusual environments but it is degraded quickly in most
places.
>
> Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects,
> birds, and small mammals by destroying vegetation on which they depend
> for food and shelter.
This is about the only true statement. Since the US does tend to overuse
it to grow Roundup ready GM crops with very heavy use of glyphosate.
>
> In laboratory tests, glyphosate increased plants' susceptibility to
> disease and reduced the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria"
>
> http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm
>
>> Glyphosate is the environmentally friendly weedkiller of choice.
>
> Not for anyone who cares about themselves or the planet they live on.
It is way better than any of the alternatives.
> Not sure if you have noticed but we are dropping like flies these days
> and not from old age. We may well never know just how bad all these
> chemicals we produce are, but one things for sure we see the results
> in our family membership lists getting shorter and shorter.
Especially if you start spraying petrol around. Beyond clueless.
>
> On that basis I think we have your views and you have mine. No need to
> argue about it.
There is a clear need to prevent you from doing something that is
bordering on suicidal in the mistaken belief that it somehow is
"chemical" free. Even sodium chlorate would be a safer option for paths
than the cretinous measures that you propose to take.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Steve
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:37:56 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:08:29 +0100, Martin Brown
>>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You should think very carefully about the flammability
>>>>> and toxicity risks too. Petrol is the only thing sold to the public
>>>>> containing a significant amount of a known carcinogen (benzene).
>>>>>
>>>>> Spraying petrol could be very nasty if there was a spark or any other
>>>>> source of ignition. It is explosive in a wide range of air mixtures.
>>>> I agree but some of us can handle it safely. Others should not be
>>>> allowed anywhere near it :))
>>> You are headed for a Darwin award.
>>
>> Really? Who will be fitting enough to award it?
>
>An organisation that records when people write themselves out of the
>gene pool by doing incredibly stupid things.
I thought I'd seen your name somewhere before!