Needs to be said.
I will go with an academic over a politician any day of the week.
The heads of Britain’s statistics society have written to the Health Secretary to point out that the government’s alcohol guidelines don’t accurately reflect the numbers. Two weeks ago the British civil servant at the Department of Health responsible for issuing medical advice (who rejoices in the corporate-inspired title of “ …
Quote: "And yet Sheffield has so many nice pubs".
Especially round the Kelham island area. Fat Cat, Riverside, the Kelham Island Tavern itself etc etc.
I've spent quite a few pleasant Friday afternoons with friends wandering from pub to pub, usually talking absolute bollocks, as you do.
I particularly enjoyed the meta-study they loudly claimed shows no statistically significant benefit to moderate drinking. The way they hoped no one would notice it also shows no statistically significant harm from moderate drinking!
They also hoped we wouldn't notice they say nothing about life expectancy, only cause of death. Long life gives cancer more chance to kill you, seems drinkers live long enough for that to replace some heart and stroke deaths.
Living in a terraced house causes terrorism ... in kids.
Well this does need to be corrected. Of course while the Beeb and the Guadian reported it as such, I think the Police and Social Services were rather worried about the same kid writing that stated he 'hated it when his uncle hit him'.
But when the lie has gone half way round the world before any 'journalist' has checked some fact, why bother. The BBC and the Guardian have both apologised/withdrawn reports (not that you could find them on their web sites without a lot of work - https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/21/removed-article) - but the damage has been done.
that totally explains why the cops spent 45 mins poking about on a computer they found (did they have a search warrant? I doubt it) and then started whining about reports bringing the prevent program into disrepute. not heard the uncle hitting him thing before and wonder where it came from. suspect it was on the cops list of talking points.
A couple more, just for fun:
Porn causes rape.
Violent video games causes violence.
Piracy causes terrorism
Encryption causes terrorism.
Not allowing the government to look at your internet history causes terrorism.
Not allowing the government to record your calls and email and IM and texts and in-game communications causes terrorism.
Telling the people what the government is doing causes terrorism.
And, drawing Mohammed is now terrorism because it invites terrorism.
Living is a hazard to your health.
Your chances of dying from some cause - 100%
The real problem is there is no activity, food, etc. that is 100% safe. Everything one does has some risk of injury and death. The risks may be very small but they exist.
Also, the ferals over here regularly spew dietary nonsense which they are consistently retracting 5 to 10 years later. For food, the best rule I have heard, eat everything in moderation and eat some of all foods. But the ferals have politicized food and it sounds like Blighty is having the same problem.
Well *there's* a surprise, boys and girls!
Don't forget, this is the government which has just passed a monumentally stupid and represesive law to ban legal highs (excluding, of course, alcohol, caffeine and tobacco) despite the fact that two of those three have been responsible for more deaths and suffering and long-term illnesses than everything else put together.
Apparently an MP has been pleading for 'poppers' (amyl nitrate) to be exempted, because 'they are popular with the gay community'. Needless to say, the MP in question is gay himself. So he's happy to deny everyone else of their legal high of choice, but wants his own choice to remain legal.
And they wonder why we hold them in contempt...
At least he's had the honesty to stand up for his own. Would that all those who engage in a bit of kinky sex had stood up and been counted, or those who smoke a bit of dope, or those who value freedom of speech and the right to protest.
Or even those who won't even stand up for their constituents for fear of losing their nice government job.
He's stood up for something he believes in and that's a quality sadly lacking in modern politicians.
Nitrate was the original poppers & fuel additive but was banned in the '70s or 80's. Until this current silly legislation nitrite was still legal.
Nitrous oxide (AKA Laughing gas, hippy crack etc.) is also used as used to enhance ICE performance and is another victim of this braindead banhammer.
An expert committee is any group of people appointed by the government who have shown themselves wise enough to believe the things that the government wants to hear.
Clearly, anyone who thinks differently isn't an expert - otherwise they wouldn't be so mistaken.
So, for an example dear to my heart, we've already had an " expert panel " reporting on the best way to teach reading. Chaired by an "expert" who already had a very fixed view of what the conclusion ought to be. Who then took evidence from other experts, these being the people who already were advocating the things he wanted to hear advocated.
Going a long way back, Marples, a road industry insider, appointed Beeching to investigate the rail industry with the clear understanding that Dr. B. believed that the age of rail was over. And we know the result.
An expert panel is only as good as the person appointing it. And usually this has not been very good.
"Given the railways were haemorrhaging money in the face of the developing roads the application of an established scientist engineer and manager makes sense."
Bit of a myth. Giving money to nationalised industries is bad. Giving more money to private industry is good innit?
The losses then were only around half the subsidy given now (adjusting for inflation) which is seen to be essential for a viable transport system. Oh, and foreign shareholders/governments.
In 1962 GDP was roughly £27.8bn and British Rail's losses were £104m or 0.37% of GDP. In 2014 UK GDP was £1,971bn and the subsidy was £5.3bn or 0.26% of GDP. However, that subsidy figure is down from the 2006 peak of £6.3bn vs £1,403bn GDP or 0.45%.
But in honesty that's a meaningless comparison as it ignores so many variables such as volume of traffic (both freight and passenger), cost of rolling cost (note that both the East Coast and Great Western are still using rolling stock developed and built by British Rail in the 70's and 80's).
Did something need doing with the Railways in 1963? Undoubtedly the answer was yes. But the implementation of the report could have been handled better.
For reference in the 1980's Japan spent 10% of GDP on railways, a significant percentage of which was spent developing the Shinkansen network.
The real mistake was abandoning APT before they had perfected it (it was nearly there).
The Eyeties bought some of the technology and perfected it, and that's what a Virgin Pendolino is. However, the real problem was (for both trains) betting the farm on a technology to avoid straightening out the bends in about four significant locations, when the real barrier to high speed was mainly the signalling (which was known even in the days of the APT).
... not drinking, that is.
I decided to go 'dry' for the first three weeks of the year and I've surprisingly succeeded without any problems. Apparently you are meant to feel better for it, but I've had more random aches and pains and twinges this past fortnight than ever before.
Glad that I get to have a beer tonight
When this was discussed on R4, a fortnight ago, the person criticising it shot it down in one sentence by pointing out the reports logic assumed zero intake of alcohol was completely risk-free. Recalling the old joke that my Uncle gave up smoking and *still* died.
Controlled usage is not usually fatal and abstinence is not immortality.
I just don't see advice on alcohol ever gaining the traction it needs to make any difference to people's behaviour. Alcohol is so engrained in our culture. Smoking never was ingrained into culture in the same way so a message about it being bad for you is much easier to sell (helps that the evidence is overwhelming of course)
Telling people they can only have 14 units a week when they are likely planning to down twice that in one Friday night is not going to get them anywhere. The advice is simply ignored - in fact it is openly mocked.
In addition, alcohol in moderation reduces anxiety, stress, and all those other bad things.
Reducing these things is a useful thing in a typical work environment. companies should be forcing their employees to drink a couple of pints every lunchtime!
The new limits are such a joke that they will actually now be totally ignored, the old limits, pulled out of thin air as they were, at least were achievable on the odd week of sobriety.
Anyway, the stats say that 40 units have the same risk as 0 units (there's a J shaped curve, 10-15 units is ideally healthy), so that's my new upper limit (if I'm feeling risk averse that week). Of course, if you are willing to take a little risk, 50, 60, 70 units is fine.
Indeed. A friend once told me they'd been advised to try to drink one non-alcoholic drink for every alcoholic one when "binge drinking" as a way to keep blood alcohol lower and reduce dehydration. Whether or not it does your health any good I'm not qualified to say but I'm sure it keeps you from drinking as much alcohol and I know in hot climates it does make the hangover less obvious.
It is said that eating properly before drinking is a good idea also -- how about trying to encourage that?
There are lots of little "tricks" that can either help reduce consumption or, perhaps, change focus a little which I am sure could help makes attitudes to drinking more healthy.
But, no, the government hires some puritanical moron to tell people something which isn't true instead. Shows just how much contempt they hold us all in -- they can't even pretend to give a shit about the people who pay them.
It is said that eating properly before drinking is a good idea also -- how about trying to encourage that?
Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
Eating first tends to prevent the peaks in blood alcohol - but if getting pissed is your target, then this actually causes you to drink more alcohol in total for the same effect. This is a net detriment to your liver.
You mean the one pulled out of Ansel Key's a**e ?
He happened to visiting the island where made the observations (sorry can't remember of Rhodes, Malta or Crete) during Lent ( lots and lots of no meat) , and naturally assumed this was "normal" & thus the "Mediterranean" diet was born.
Ansel Keys - deserves a place in the innermost circle of heck for the damage he has wrought
'It's perfectly safe and valid to say "Hell" when naming the "place".'
Heck is in Yorkshire http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=459500&y=421500&z=120&sv=great+heck&st=3&tl=Map+of+Great+Heck,+North+Yorkshire+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf as is Hades http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=413762&y=404930&z=115&sv=413762,404930&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=841&ax=413762&ay=404930&lm=0
The results of the studies I've seen would support the conclusion that moderate alcohol intake is beneficial to your health.
However, constant exposure to bogus studies with nonsensical conclusions passed off as "science" does have an adverse impact on faith in anything the "experts" tell you.
Check the actual evidence on "secondhand" or even "thirdhand smoke".
This is nothing new. Medical Public Health types lie - it is what they do. The non-medical ones generally have to be restrained from kicking a clue into them.
Hence sugar taxes, plain packaging for tobacco (Which raised smoking levels in Australia), "no safe limit" for alcohol. Fat taxes (Ask the Danes about that one - it didn't last long)
The "actual evidence on second hand smoking" that indirectly forced the pub smoking ban was staff blood tests regularly finding high enough levels of CO to threaten health. Doesnt matter if most exposure just leaves you stinking of smoke, some of it has more serious effects.
The pub trade got lucky, they were on the brink of a flood of lawsuits when the ban preempted the issue.
Most pub users I've talked to approve the ban anyway, including the smokers, who can still appreciate better air quality. Just a pity it took health scares to force action. Politicians and business don't have the balls to ban offensive practice's, they always need some health excuse to hide behind.
Surely women are typically much smaller than men. I was just out with a friend who's 5' and probably 50kgs, I'm 6'2" and about 100kgs. It seems implausible that we would be equally affected by the same amount of alcohol. Of course not just women are small either, I know blokes that must be half my weight too. Shouldn't size be a factor as much as gender?
It may not be linearly correlated, but the driving limit is the concentration in your blood, so it ought to related to (at least) your water content or so.
Sadly politicians lying about facts & figures (or being "economical with the truth" as they say in parliament) has become so common that people will simply ignore the guidelines. Pushing harder on binge drinking might have made sense (less A&E trouble, etc) but they probably blew that.
politically correct do gooder fascists don't like reality to impinge on their fantasy of how they think reality should be. It's long been a solid statistical fact that moderate consumption of wines and such results in much longer life expectancy rates. Unfortunately this upsets the Apple cart in the do-gooder insanity stream somewhat.......a disease most inhabitants of the muddy island seem to suffer from...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019