Posts by John Brown (no body)

Re: Jesus, NO!

"Don't tell me what to breathe, and I won't tell you what to eat!"

Then please don't exhale anywhere near other people. $deity knows what infection diseases you might be exhaling! :-)

Re: Jesus, NO!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/22/ecigarettes-worse-than-smoking-cancer_n_6522402.html

It's telling that the article doesn't link to the paper, just the front page of the site. The Liverpool John Moore research, the only proper link they do provide, a study published 3 years ago, so data from 4 or more years ago, has been superseded by more recent research showing that young non-smokers are NOT taking up vaping other than in very small numbers, less than those who would, in the past, have taken up smoking. Overall, it's a large drop in smokers and much smaller uptake of newbies to both smoking and vaping.

The NEJM study also said e-cigs *may* act as a gateway to smoking, in other words, opinion, not fact.

Here's some info from the British Heart Foundations that's reasonably unbiased.

Re: No vaping in the workplace please

"Yes, but the most senior politicians in the country are pushing forward policy-based evidence..."

...and yet the politicians are agreeing with the medical community and going with the evidence in this case, which is the primary point of the article.

Re: One has to wonder who is paying those guys off

"but the obvious other side is innocent bystanders who have to breathe that shit."

Please describe "that shit" and the harm that it does. Extra marks for providing actual evidence and not just your own personal feelings of disgust aty something you don't like.

PS, I hope you don't eat Pot Noodle in public. That makes me heave and should be banned. Because I don't like it. $deity knows what chemicals are being vaped off it and I have to breath in.

Re: Smoking on buses is illegal

"Just because it's not harmful, doesnt mean we should all have to deal with it"

I was doing job in a office just the other days and I had to put up with the disgusting stink of a Pot Noodle and the feckin' bloke eating it was a noisy eater whose sounds, in combination with the stink, almost made me heave! BAN POT NOODLE. You know you want to.

Re: but... but...

Yeah, I usty had a quick scan down the story...and guess what? All the "related" stories linked at the bottom are as anti-vaping whacko stories as I've ever seen. I can't quite work out whether they are sponsored by tobacco companies or ant-smoking lobbies.

Re: Psychosomatic?

"Edit: vaping does need to be regulated to ensure that the liquids remain safe. Just food, drink, drugs common sense."

Oh, absolutely. But not as a medicine, which is what the article is primarily about.

Re: Mmmmkay

"Vaping isn't good for you or the person standing next to you."

Please describe, with evidence, the harm caused to people standing next to an average vaper.

Current evidence states that there is no risk greater than those toxins one is exposed to in normal everyday life. Probably less.

"The is as much evidence for the safety of vaping as there was for the safety of tobacco when it was first introduced."

<sigh> another one posting before bothering to read the article properly or the comments with links.

Re: UK OK

"and we can examine in five years time whether more or less people are actually smoking as a result. "

FYI, e-cigs have been available for over 5 years, widely available for at least 3 years, and the number of smokers has dropped noticeabley with the take-up of vaping. Thanks for your concerns and hopefully your local government will see the results and act on them soon. Unless, of course, it's one of those places where people pay for their medical care so there's no financial incentive to reduce smoking related illness and so many die before spending their pensions.

BTW, if you'd bothered to find out what the vaping process entails, you'd know that there is no fire or smoke involved in the process. It's a tiny heating element that doesn't even glow. Or were you referring to all those guns the TSA misses on domestic US flights? The explosive in the bullets does tend to burn rather rapidly.

Re: No vaping in the workplace please(@Mephistro)

"This is exactly what vapers do, but they exhale a cloud that carries their exhalation a lot further, effectively breathing straight into other people's faces."

Rubbish! The vast majority of vapers do NOT breath it out into other peoples faces. And it doesn't carry any further than a non-vapers breath does as you can see for yourself on a cold morning. Just because you can't see a non-vaped exhalation doesn't mean that it travels a shorter distance.

You are assuming that all vapers are the same as the minority of "cloud surfers" who stand out from the crowd. Maybe all people who make wild unsubstantiated assumptions should be banned from the forums ;-)

And as for "potentially toxic exhalation", how the hell do I know what nasty infectious germs you are breathing out all over me? You are "potentially" typhoid Mary and ICM£5.

Re: Jesus, NO!

"I am amused by the self-righteousness and victim mentality of people who think that being too weak to give up smoking excuses being selfish."

I'm amused by the self-righteousness and condescending attitude of people who are non-smokers and ant-vaping. Oh, wait. Did I just generalise you into that group of people? My bad.

Re: Jesus, NO!

"It does contain a known carcinogen and various irritants."

So do tomatoes!

Re: We already know.

"The flavours in vaping are governed by food legislation. That means their effect when heated hasn't always been tested."

I wonder why that is, considering they are used in cooking, baking, frying etc., especially in commercial production of foods.

Re: We already know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes

Thanks for that. Interesting. Contradictory in places, but informative.

Re: We already know.

"There's already been the case of the caramel flavour that's carcinogenic when heated and inhaled, but perfectly safe when flavouring food."

Citation please, I'd really like to know about that.

Down voted? What sad sack down voted a request for further information and why? Is that you Mrs Whitehouse?

Re: Is this the ONLY benefit to Brexit that Gov.Uk can come up with?

"Saddens me that this will work,"

Why? It's still a pretty small minority of people and it still won't get me to vote Tory.

Re: No vaping in the workplace please

"And I worry whether it is really adequately regulated for users' safety."

Regulation implies harm, and since the most senior medical professionals in the country are pushing forward evidence based policy in favour of vaping, then I think someone will have to demonstrate harm before any evidence based regulations are added to those already existing ones.

Re: We already know.

"There's already been the case of the caramel flavour that's carcinogenic when heated and inhaled, but perfectly safe when flavouring food."

Citation please, I'd really like to know about that.

Re: Jesus, NO!

"No, because that's an entirely natural process."

Fair enough. You won't mind us all following you around and doing the natural thing whenever we're near you then? Or maybe there are social norms around the subject? Maybe vaping simply doesn't have those social norms yet but you'd rather ban it than see if there's a better solution?

"What does Chris Evens do that gets him at the top of the list?"

Large listening/viewing figures. But the BBC don't care about ratings, do they?

To be a little more serious though, in commercial entertainment, pay is based on viewers/listeners who can be advertised to, and the BBC has to compete with that. Likewise, ratings are important to the BBC, at least with respect to whether a show will continue or not and what the people on or making the show get paid. Other parameters are also used.

Re: OK Not to defend the BBC and all...

"Whilst there's all the rah rah rah about unequal pay, it would actually be interesting to see the pay per viewing hour between the female and male actors and THEN maybe we can see how big the difference is. "

Maybe all the "talent" should have to fill out time sheets and get paid pro-rata per hour instead assuming that the headline salary is for a standard working week. Some of the lower paid would probably end up with more money :-)

The point was also raised that the BBC gender pay disparity is not as bad as the national average gender pay disparity. But that was a BBC man saying that and $deity knows how accurate that statistic is!

Re: Don't blame the stars for low pay

agents want to sell cheaper talent."

Why would Mr/Mrs 10% want to sell cheaper talent?

Exactly. How long before we see all the other "named and shamed" high earners paid by the public purse? Will they be happy about having their personal salary spaffed all over the media and web?

Local council execs, civil servants, NHS etc. It's a big list. And what about when the bar is lowered and anyone paid from the public purse is publicly named along with the salary? They'd all be out on strike, and quite rightly too.

"We recently moved to that system in the US."

You have a wide ranging opinion of what "recently" means :-)

Re: Soooo...

"Well, given that satellite installers typically run the cable down the wall and drill straight through into the living room, most people would accept a less tidy job."

From the article, I get the impression these are literally base stations, so there's not going to be one on every house. Range, types of buildings surrounding and the local geography will define how many are needed per $area.

Re: The society of the spectacle

"In a consumer society, social life is not about living, but about having; the spectacle uses the image to convey what people need and must have. Consequently, social life moves further, leaving a state of 'having' and proceeding into a state of 'appearing'; namely the appearance of the image".

I could REALLY use a Moke Coke about now! It's healthy and wealthy and makes me look cool!

Re: This is a good thing

"At one time the stated role of the ASA was to ensure that adverts were "legal decent honest and truthful". Now, it seems, they wish to control both the message and its manner of delivery so that their social engineering ambitions will be fulfilled."

That's because that nice wide and grey line drawn by "legal decent honest and truthful" has been so sorely abused by the advertising industry pushing the boundaries as far as possible, like a child experimenting with what is and isn't allowed. They are supposed to be adults working within the spirit of the law, not unthinking toddlers trying it on.

TL;DR. Are you defending the advertising industry? Really? #sad LOL

Re: This is a good thing

" Not that I ever buy fabric softener "

I take it you like hard and rough towels or never dry the washing outside on a washing line. Using an electric clothes dryer can negate the need for softener, but at a cost.

Re: This is a bad thing

"so how much harm is done then? do you know anyone who has been directly effected by being shown a negative sterotype?"

Not so very long ago it was socially acceptable to smoke pretty much wherever you wanted, even in an enclosed aircraft. It was gradually made more and more unacceptable until eventually the die-hards had to be legislated against. Now smokers get tutted at out in the open air in some case.

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but your stereotypical working class man of the 1960's would rarely have been seen without a cigarette hanging off his lip. That's changed now and mainly by the negative messages and stereotypes used in the anti-smoking campaigns. Advertising works. Just not always they way it's intended, but repeat a message often enough and for long enough and it will take hold in significant sections of the population.

Re: Guns

"Owning a firearm does not make automatically make someone a cowboy killer."

But are you the sort of person who would be carrying a loaded gun onto an aircraft and forget that you had it with you? I suspect not, but the sort of person who does do that is far less likely to be a well trained user. THAT is the problem.

Re: Guns

"far more dangerous to US citizens than the terrorists the laptop ban"

Has there ever actually been a "laptop bomb" incident or is this one of those "we have received intel so will ban laptops" things? If the latter, the terrorist just have to keep coming up with ever more ludicrous schemes, drop a hint to the "enemy" security services and watch the results as it "terrorises" the intended targets for little to no effort

Re: "Ironically Riyadh has really strict security checks on arrival."

"Highly, given how many of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi nationals."

And all those people attempting to take guns onto aircraft at US airports are mainly US nationals. This makes one wonder if US airport security meets the standards they are enforcing on the rest of the world and how many guns are not detected and make it onto US domestic flights.

We keep hearing how incompetent the TSA are yet they are discovering many guns every week. If they are so incompetent, they may be missing 100's every week.