Page 8 of 8
Re: Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:15 pm
by Nigel Rainton
I'm not too sure how the quote function on the forum works because I've never used it but I did not write the above :-)
Re: Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:11 pm
by Mark
SofaSurfer wrote:I'm not too sure how the quote function on the forum works because I've never used it but I did not write the above :-)
I have amended the quotes in JAA's post SofaSurfer, it just looked like an edited quote embedded error.
Re: Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:56 pm
by JAA
Mark wrote:SofaSurfer wrote:I'm not too sure how the quote function on the forum works because I've never used it but I did not write the above :-)
I have amended the quotes in JAA's post SofaSurfer, it just looked like an edited quote embedded error.
My apologies everyone, smart-phone finger trouble.
Re: Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:48 pm
by Nigel Rainton
No problem, I thought it might have been a software error :-)
Re: Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:55 pm
by Carp Artist
Depleted uranium as a substitute?
Re: Closer to a ban on traditional lead weights.
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:42 pm
by Stathamender
I find it difficult to understand the, at times extreme, paranoia that seems to permeate some of the posts on this thread. This is not the end of the world. Lead is toxic, keeping it out of the ecosystem is, therefore, a good thing for all of us, humans and other animals alike. This is not part of some giant conspiracy to suppress angling. The anti-pollution action of the last few decades has greatly improved our sport and it's no big thing to have to use a substitute for lead.