I saw the results of someone using a burner last week. They also set fire to their hedge & next doors car causing significant heat damage to double glazed windows & guttering.

Just use gylphostate. Lots of things we use all the time are much more cancerous. Booze, bacon or sunshine anyone? Please don’t tip homemade concoctions around our environment. High salt levels will kill more than just weeds.

What can I use on weeds that won’t kill grass?

roundup / glyphosphate is very damaging to the environment., builds up in the ground, is a known carcinogen and mutagen. Please avoid it out of respect for the environment.

Monsanto its makers have spent decades funding “research” and suppressing any evidence of ill effects from it. corrupt organisation pushing nasty pollutants

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

It doesn’t build up in the ground if it did then new plants and weeds wouldn’t grow in soil sprayed with it. They do. It actually breaks down very quickly. It is showing up in the food chain/water due to incorrect or ocer use and whilst i don’t think it should be widely used in agriculture as it currently is there is no risk to human or insect if used correctly to kill a few weeds in a driveway. The hysteria around gylphostate in particular is ridiculous and could cause more damage to the environment as if it gets banned other less well tested and harsher chemicals will be employed instead.

What can I use on weeds that won’t kill grass?

This stuff. Follow the instructions to the letter and it will perform witchcraft.

(Your guess is as good as mine as to why I took a picture instead of just sending an Amazon link)

TJ, care to substantiate that scare mongering and big business conspiracy theory?

Weed killers have an important place in horticulture, glyphosate is pretty benign compared to the previous generation of persistent and genuinely nasty chemicals.

What can I use on weeds that won’t kill grass?

Weedol (which is glyphosphate).

Only kills broad leaf plants not grass.

Weedol is MCPA not glyphosate. Glyphosate is particularly good at killing grass.

Weedol is MCPA not glyphosate. Glyphosate is particularly good at killing grass.

Thanks, you’re right. That could have been an unfortunate misconception to have been left with!

roundup / glyphosphate is very damaging to the environment., builds up in the ground, is a known carcinogen and mutagen. Please avoid it out of respect for the environment.

Not really, but regardless, advocating salt, burners etc is hardly good for the environment either.

stumpyjohn – its all out there. start with the article linked to. Look into the supposed research by scientists paid by monsanto look into the suppression of data that shows harm. I’ll have a further dig but its hard to find stuff that would satisfy you as the data that shows harm is supressed.

Myti – there are proven risk to roundup – its NOT safe. It may be less nasty that previous generations of weedkiller but it is both a carcinogen and a mutogen.

In the present case, the jury was undoubtedly influenced by information that came to light about Monsanto having known, but not having revealed, that glyphosate in huge doses may cause cancer in mice. The company claims that there was no need to publicize this because the information is not relevant to humans. Monsanto also shot itself in the foot by sponsoring some overzealous ghost-written articles about the safety of glyphosate.

https://mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment/glyphosate-trial

Decent source?

In fact, these documents were released in part to aid the efforts of the European regulators and the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, as they weighed evidence regarding glyphosate registration/classification. The damning tale that these documents tell over how Monsanto has handled the issues over the ostensible safety of its widely-used product will provide regulators across the globe with access to key information that should inform their vital decision-making processes. We sincerely believe that it is imperative for the litigation process to be as transparent and open to public scrutiny as possible, particularly since every aspect of this case has repercussions for society as a whole.

Monsanto Papers | Secret Documents

Aggain seems a decent source. found quite a few papers in peer reviewed journals about harm caused by glyphosphate

Plenty of other data out there showing evidence of harm and plenty of monsanto paying researchers and only publishing favorable results while supressing unfavourable ones by not publishing

Also shed loads of terribly dubious sites with all sorts of hysterical stuff

This is also pretty damning about the unethical practices

Monsanto officials were repeatedly worried about the release of documents on their financial relationships with scientists that could support the allegations they were “covering up unflattering research”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young

The monitoring of glyphosate levels in food and in human urine and blood has been inadequate. The common practice of desiccation and/or ripening with glyphosate right before the harvest ensures that glyphosate residues are present in our food supply. It is plausible that the recent sharp increase of kidney failure in agricultural workers is tied to glyphosate exposure. We urge governments globally to reexamine their policy towards glyphosate and to introduce new legislation that would restrict its usage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

Newly released court documents in a federal lawsuit suggest Monsanto planned to ghostwrite a positive report on glyphosate and get experts to back it up.

An scientist wrote in an email “…we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-accuses-monsanto-of-manipulating-research-to-hide-roundup-dangers/

Or, for those who trust “More or Less”, here’s their debunking of the cancer risk here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p075mwd3

Maybe we should do an experiment. I will drink some vinegar and you can drink some…. whatever you are advocating.

I just found this that looks like a good read but not got time now as it is very long. Looks legit though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

Perhaps the customer of the gardener I met asked them to use the vinegar instead of alternatives for any number of good reasons. He should be struck off the gardeners register.

Tj. Lots of substances have been proven much more strongly to be linked to cancer than glyphosate and we actually eat those. Get some perspective.

myti – just responding to you saying its perfectly safe. Its not. Shure its better than some weedkillers but given its a known carcinogen and mutagen and given that monsanto has done its best to distort and suppress evidence of harm so we really do not know how harmful then if you have a choice of using it or not then not seems to me to be the safer route

The less carcinogens in the environment the better surely?

Well myti’s comments clearly went over TJ’s head, it’s not black and white, many things are carcinogenic, Devon for example, maybe we should granite as well.

No it didn’t. My premise is simple Why introduce a known carcinogen into your garden with no need? Yes there are other carcinogens out there but two wrongs do not make a right

Because if you want properly kill the weeds you need to kill the roots as well, the function of killing the weeds highly out ranked the tiny alleged carcinogenic potential. It’s also a lot more environmentally friendly than burning fossil fuel in a weed gun or chucking around nasty persistent chemicals that have affects way beyond killing a few weeds. Vinegar is potentially carcinogenic and salt is toxic in high doses.

I’ve got to laugh at the accuracy of that PANUK page linked to. GM crops are not common place in the UK, and use of Glyphosate as a desiccant is rare for grain crops. And why do they keep mentioning/linking to pesticide research for a herbicide?

I do agree the use of chemicals should be minimised, but I don’t belief any specific ones should be banned outright unless there is an effective and safer alternative. Which in the case of weedkillers, there is nothing as effective and as safe as Glyphosate.
To put it in context for short term health, a glass of industrial* strength glyphosate is less poisonous for humans than an equivalent glass of salt. It might make you violently sick, but it’s less likely to kill you. Long term effects as for nearly everything, are always open to interpretation, as you can’t really isolate a singular cause over the long term.

For those interested, the previous options were far more lethal. Gromoxyn was a popular weedkiller pre-glyphosate, but farmers were known to have died because they failed to wash their hands well enough after handling it, then ate something with their hands. And that’s before you considered the damage it would do to wildlife.

As somebody who grew up on a small holding producing soft fruit, I know the impacts of chemicals, and also the major benefits. There are still chemicals available which are known to cause far more issues than glyphosate ever will, but without those chemicals, food production could quite realistically be destroyed. I actually despise spraying for the sake of what if (insert improbable pest/disease of choice, because you’re too lazy to regularly check for pest/diseases), but it’s far better to use something not 100% safe than lose an entire crop. Take strawberries for example, you can quite happily grow them 90% of the time without any chemicals, however there are diseases/pests which will wipe out entire fields within days unless controlled. And I’m not talking just losing a single crop, you’re talking losing the entire plants, and then those fields potentially be unusable for several years unless treated.
And in case you’re wondering how organic growers handle the problem, they’ll spray then sell the fruit as non-organic. Most organic standards have special dispensation options available to use chemicals as a case of last resort for serious problems where chemical use is the only realistic way of controlling the problem.

*Anything the public can buy in the EU, is certainly not industrial strength. 5 litres from an agricultural chemical supplier will easily fill an agricultural sprayer.

As for the original question. If you really want the environmentally friendly option, get an old fashioned push hoe with a T head and T handle (the handle’s the key bit to minimise blisters!). This is the first picture google found – https://www.dewit.eu/en/products/long-handled-tools/push-and-pull-hoe-ash-handle-1400mm
Far better than dutch/pull hoes, and with the right technique, it’ll quickly slice weeds off flush with slabs, and even work on gravel. Just make sure you do it on a nice sunny day, so even anything not 100% sliced off will get dried of quickly.
They were always my dad’s preferred weed remover, as they’re far more versatile than other hoes for weed removal.

Maybe we should do an experiment. I will drink some vinegar

If you tried drinking the commercial stuff you’d burn through your throat.