Neighbours weeds

[MisterBoy]

Sounds like spraying is the option. The nice thing about modern weedkillers is they want to be sprayed on the leaves - which you have access to. Think I'd do that first and see how it copes. And find a pole with a hook (or a hoe or whatever) to try and pull as much out/off as possible once it's dying. It's possible this might be a repeat procedure if you can't treat all of it but far less often than just trimming every couple of weeks. Maybe once or twice a year.

 

[Munroast]

Not particularly kind or at all helpful.

This page seems to repeat things mentioned here: physically removing it as the most effective but standard weedkiller a good option too. Depends if you can get to the source?

you seem to have snipped out the bit where I confirmed the all important fact of what type of plant it is, was that not helpful?

There is only two ways to deal with the OP problem, that is to dig it out or poison it, digging out does not seem to be posible due to access and trying to poison only the bits that grow over the boundary is just a reckless use of a controversial chemical that is unlikely to work and almost certainly illegal without consent. The only option is just to trim it back.

 

[MisterBoy]

He has consent as far as I can see and standard weedkiller is hardly a controversial chemical. It seems the owner would give him access but he'd want to double check there's no dogs or children running around, I'd want to show the owner what I was about to use first.
If he can get all that mess growing on top with a sprayer it's going to die IMO. Or be hugely reduced at least.

 

[Munroast]

He has consent as far as I can see and standard weedkiller is hardly a controversial chemical. It seems the owner would give him access but he'd want to double check there's no dogs or children running around, I'd want to show the owner what I was about to use first.
If he can get all that mess growing on top with a sprayer it's going to die IMO. Or be hugely reduced at least.

Quote - https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2021/07/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer
" The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, however, stated in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” CNN reported that hundreds of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma started suing the manufacturers of glyphosate herbicides after WHO made its announcement.

In 2019, researchers at University of Washington concluded that using glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41 percent. In the study, published in Mutation Research, researchers wrote that an analysis of human epidemiological studies “suggests a compelling link between exposures to [glyphosate-based herbicides] and increased risk” for non-Hodgkin lymphoma."

 

[MisterBoy]

Lots of things we use day-to-day are dangerous. Doesn't make them controversial.

 

[StephenOak]

@Munroist

That first piece is a blog, not a study. Anyone can write anything on a blog, and they can selectively quote or mis-quote sources.

I notice that you did not include the previous sentences
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.” The European Food Safety Authority agrees.

I thought that the UW study rang a bell as not being that meaningful and it took 10 seconds to see I was right. The Abstract includes
Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study

The main data source for this is an agricultural study, i.e. farm workers using lots of glyphosate.

Plusthere are loads of studies that show no link between glyphosate and cancer.

 

[Munroast]

@Munroist

That first piece is a blog, not a study. Anyone can write anything on a blog, and they can selectively quote or mis-quote sources.

I notice that you did not include the previous sentences
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.” The European Food Safety Authority agrees.

I thought that the UW study rang a bell as not being that meaningful and it took 10 seconds to see I was right. The Abstract includes
Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study

The main data source for this is an agricultural study, i.e. farm workers using lots of glyphosate.

Plusthere are loads of studies that show no link between glyphosate and cancer.

The British Medical Journal

Probable carcinogenicity of glyphosate

Independent investigation must continue In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen.12 It quickly became evident that separating science from politics...

www.bmj.com

I don't know what the truth is, and some very respectable medical organisations don't seem to be certain either - Large corporations tell us it is entirely safe, but why have they been reported as paying out $10 Billion, yes BILLION in compensation ?

Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits (Published 2020)

Bayer faced tens of thousands of claims linking the weedkiller to cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Some of the money is set aside for future cases.

www.nytimes.com

For me the jury is still out on whether it is safe or not, controvertial seems an appropiate word for this chemical!

(I do us it twice a year to clear my driveway, but I take many precautions including a proper face mask to take out any vapour.)

 

[StephenOak]

@Munroist It would be better if you read what you linked to first.

From the first link
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen.12 It quickly became evident that separating science from politics and economic interests would be difficult for glyphosate.
(emphasis added)

"but why have they been reported as paying out $10 Billion, yes BILLION in compensation ?"
Simply because it is cheaper than going to trial, especially in the US. Hence
The company is taking a calculated risk that the benchmark settlement will largely resolve its legal problems.

Werner Baumann, Bayer’s chief executive, said that the two critical conditions for a settlement were that it was financially reasonable and that it would bring closure to the litigation.

In the US, court cases like this can go on for decades and thus cost a fortune in lawyers fees, and associated costs, before the trial even starts. If someone is found at fault the level of compensation is (at least initially) set by the jury which has no idea what is appropriate and picks a (very large) number out of the air.

Also it is impossible to prove whether people ignored the relevant safety guidelines when they were using glyphosate five (10, 20, etc) years ago but I am sure that anyone making a claim will swear they followed all of this to the letter.

Also, Bayer spent $68 billion buying Monsanto while the cases were outstanding, so they factored this in.

Glyphosate has been in use for decades, and is basically the only herbicide permitted in the EU. If it was a problem in domestic, as opposed to commercial, use then there would be a noticeable increase in cancer rates. Where is the evidence for that?