Ronseal Fencelife

[jezd]

fri - maybe of interest (not sure if I posted before)

Dear Sir

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the Ronseal Fencelife does not contain pesticides.

Kind Regards

Ronseal Technical Services

 

[Brosville]

If you download the "safety sheet", you'll find that the active ingredient is
Propylene glycol, and would commend the caveats about it at the end of the Wikipedia article about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol - just because something hasn't been classified as an "icide" doesn't mean it isn't deadly to all or some lifeforms - it isn't marketed as an "icide" so presumably hasn't been tested as such...........
Personally, I'll stick to food-grade linseed, possibly with the addition of beeswax, then I KNOW it's safe!

 

[jezd]

duuno, all I can say is I did 4 new hives in this and had no issues at all, mind you it may well not be the best weood treatement anyway.

 

[taff..]

wiki is not a reliable source of information,

if I presented any work to my tutors quoting wiki as a research source I'd be sent packing, any fool can write anything on wiki

 

[Brosville]

not substantially different info here - http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/HTMLdocs/PropyleneGlycol.htm
I'll stick to linseed..............
And I'll also defend Wikipedia- no it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate, and I'd never rely on it for a definitive "answer" to anything, but for a "swift look up" of factual matters, it's invaluable (and has, as in this case, proved remarkably accurate as my usage of it has always suggested - facts have always checked out when cross-referenced with other sources) - it is certainly entirely sufficient to "raise questions of safety" in this case, which you may wish to follow up!

 

[Trev]

The propylene glycol is the solvent in the product and will emit VOC. It is really just a cosmetic stain with 5 year Colour protection, Not Wood Protection ! It does have some waxes in it to initially repel water.

See the recent banter on the thread paint\stain\varnish whatever

 

[taff..]

And I'll also defend Wikipedia- no it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate, and I'd never rely on it for a definitive "answer" to anything, but for a "swift look up" of factual matters, it's invaluable (and has, as in this case, proved remarkably accurate as my usage of it has always suggested - facts have always checked out when cross-referenced with other sources) - it is certainly entirely sufficient to "raise questions of safety" in this case, which you may wish to follow up!

I'm not trying to pick holes, just illustrate how 'wiki - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' can be inacurate

on a day that Nimrod XV230 is topical here is an extract

The aircraft is believed to have suffered a leak during midair refuelling while it was monitoring a NATO offensive against Taliban insurgents west of Kandahar. The fuel appears to have leaked into the bomb bay where it caught fire, either as the result of an electrical fault or hot air leaking from a heating pipe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_XV230

the fire was not in the bomb bay, the indications came from the bomb bay because thats the only place where there are sensors that could be activated, the fire was in a cavity in the stbd wing where there are no sensors.

I could go further through that article picking holes but I wont as I think I've dragged this thread off topic enough already, sorry jezd.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Suppose you could use this theory to not believe anything you ever read or hear,all imformation is nothing but lies no matter where or who the info comes from.

 

[MrB]

Nimrod XV230

sorry to stray of topic, but i flew on that aircraft many years ago as avionics test crew with british aerospace!

 

[JCBrum]

Suppose you could use this theory to not believe anything you ever read or hear,all imformation is nothing but lies no matter where or who the info comes from.

It's not an unreasonable assumption to make, until you've had the opportunity to replicate the experiment yourself, and discover whether your findings agree with the hypothesis.

That is in fact the basis of established scientific fact. Firstly publish and then obtain concurrent results from others.

However, somewhere along the line I suppose repeated concurrent findings become received knowledge, and are published as accepted fact.

I must admit I do find it difficult to accept Wikipedia as an authoritative source because of precisely the kind of example given by Taff.

It is generally useful as a 'quick reference' however.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Sorry JC, i don't believe a word you say. You just can't trust any imformation.

 

[JCBrum]

Sorry JC, i don't believe a word you say. You just can't trust any imformation.

Ha Ha, quite right, you can't even believe what you see sometimes, stick to what you proven yourself, and then only on the third instance