We often hear the travel news, even when we're not traveling. In spite of all the many accidents that have been reported, I've never heard of people ringing in to find out if the victims are ok. However, yesterday, a horse box had apparently overturned, and so many people were concerned that they told us there were two Shetland ponies on board and kept us informed as to how they were progressing to get them back and reassured us they were ok.
I know we're a nation of animal lovers, but hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Thursday, 9 April 2009
MMR controversy - I have my say
The arguments for and against the MMR vaccine continue unabated. As far as doctors are concerned it's safe. But many parents are not convinced. I'd like to make two observations.
1. You can never say something is 'safe'. All you can say is that it has not been proved to be unsafe. I remember reading that when x-ray machines were a new invention they actually had them in shoe shops so you could x-ray your children's feet to see how well their shoes fitted. You see, x-rays were safe - until it was found out they weren't. Then there was DDT (for the intellectual among you, that stands for DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane). It was hailed as a wonder insecticide after the war. Until it was found to have serious health and environmental impacts.
As far as MMR is concerned, it has not been proved to be unsafe. But doing that is not easy. So read with scepticism anything that purports to be 'safe'. Just remember it's not been proven unsafe and use your own judgement. Oh, and by the way, you may like to talk to a parent who, to all intents and purposes had a healthy baby before its MMR jab, and then its health went downhill after that. Ask them what they think of the 'safe' claim.
2. Let's forget science for a moment and use a little common sense. What are you doing when you administer the MMR vaccine? You are giving a one year old child a weakened dose of three serious diseases in one go! I just ask the question, "Does that make sense?" I must say it doesn't to me, but you must make up your own mind.
Finally, of course, it would solve the problem by giving children the three vaccinations separately. Ah, of course, I forgot! That would cost more money and so is not available on the NHS.
1. You can never say something is 'safe'. All you can say is that it has not been proved to be unsafe. I remember reading that when x-ray machines were a new invention they actually had them in shoe shops so you could x-ray your children's feet to see how well their shoes fitted. You see, x-rays were safe - until it was found out they weren't. Then there was DDT (for the intellectual among you, that stands for DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane). It was hailed as a wonder insecticide after the war. Until it was found to have serious health and environmental impacts.
As far as MMR is concerned, it has not been proved to be unsafe. But doing that is not easy. So read with scepticism anything that purports to be 'safe'. Just remember it's not been proven unsafe and use your own judgement. Oh, and by the way, you may like to talk to a parent who, to all intents and purposes had a healthy baby before its MMR jab, and then its health went downhill after that. Ask them what they think of the 'safe' claim.
2. Let's forget science for a moment and use a little common sense. What are you doing when you administer the MMR vaccine? You are giving a one year old child a weakened dose of three serious diseases in one go! I just ask the question, "Does that make sense?" I must say it doesn't to me, but you must make up your own mind.
Finally, of course, it would solve the problem by giving children the three vaccinations separately. Ah, of course, I forgot! That would cost more money and so is not available on the NHS.
Overt spying?
In our local newspaper this week the banner headline is, "Drivers beware: parking spy-car planned". Now spying is something that is done covertly. So how can we call this a spy car when emblazoned on the bodywork is "CCTV mobile traffic and parking enforcement" AND there's a CCTV camera stuck up on a pole going up about ten feet above the roof! I don't think it will be able to 'creep' up on unsuspecting motorists!
Various people were quoted in the article who are against this car. It's interesting that people object to being fined for parking illegally. When they do this, they normally cause an obstruction which often causes traffic congestion. And when I'm held up because of illegally parked cars, I'm all for the "spy-car"!
But I bet it'll never be there when you want it ...
Various people were quoted in the article who are against this car. It's interesting that people object to being fined for parking illegally. When they do this, they normally cause an obstruction which often causes traffic congestion. And when I'm held up because of illegally parked cars, I'm all for the "spy-car"!
But I bet it'll never be there when you want it ...
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Easter eggs
Today my wife and I have been looking round for an Easter egg to buy. One we can share together on Easter Day (see blog below). I had two requisites – it must be a fair-trade egg and have the extra chocolate inside the egg. And that’s the problem! When I was a lad (!) you used to be able to buy chocolate eggs and when you opened them, other chocolates fell out. Now the extra chocolate bar (or whatever) is elsewhere in the vastly over-packaged box.
Unfortunately I couldn’t find anything that came up to my exacting standards. But I have to give a mention to the Cadbury’s egg with chocolate buttons inside and the Nestle egg with Samarties inside. But we went for a fair-trade egg in the end. Divine chocolate egg with mini-eggs.
And here’s an interesting thing. In The Guardian today they have the results of an Easter egg taste test they ran. Out of about 50 eggs, they list the top six. Four of them are priced £62, £29.50, £22, and £9.99 respectively. But the two cheapest (both £4.99) are both fair-trade eggs!
So you can enjoy good tasting chocolate, with an ethically sound purchase that doesn’t involve taking out a loan! Eat and enjoy!
Unfortunately I couldn’t find anything that came up to my exacting standards. But I have to give a mention to the Cadbury’s egg with chocolate buttons inside and the Nestle egg with Samarties inside. But we went for a fair-trade egg in the end. Divine chocolate egg with mini-eggs.
And here’s an interesting thing. In The Guardian today they have the results of an Easter egg taste test they ran. Out of about 50 eggs, they list the top six. Four of them are priced £62, £29.50, £22, and £9.99 respectively. But the two cheapest (both £4.99) are both fair-trade eggs!
So you can enjoy good tasting chocolate, with an ethically sound purchase that doesn’t involve taking out a loan! Eat and enjoy!
Wot, no fruit and nut?
I have given up chocolate for Lent. Some people at church are surprised, saying either that they don’t do things like that (i.e. give things up in Lent) or that they couldn’t do without their chocolate fix!So let me explain why I’m doing it. It is a kind of fast, what some call a partial fast. Like when Daniel and his friends in the Bible lived on only vegetables and water for ten days (Daniel chapter 1). Jesus gave us instructions for fasting. He began by saying “When you fast” (not if; Matthew 6:16).
I think this kind of fasting helps us to keep control over our bodies, rather than letting them get the upper hand. St Paul wrote about “beating” his body to make it his slave (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). From the context I don’t think he meant that literally, but he was saying that for the Christian, it takes discipline to live out the Christian life.
In our consumer culture, where whatever we want we must have, and now, it can be helpful to say, “I may want that chocolate bar, but I don’t need it, and I can do without it, so I will do without it!”
And by the way, if you do give up chocolate for Lent, it tastes so much sweeter on Easter Day!
In our consumer culture, where whatever we want we must have, and now, it can be helpful to say, “I may want that chocolate bar, but I don’t need it, and I can do without it, so I will do without it!”
And by the way, if you do give up chocolate for Lent, it tastes so much sweeter on Easter Day!
Saturday, 4 April 2009
A Couple of Updates
In my "Random Observations" of 4 March, I queried the rather obscure picture on the side of a long life light bulb that we had purchased (see below). I admitted to not knowing what it meant and suggested that words, rather than that obscure picture might have been more helpful.
Well, Clare has suggested it might mean don't use it with a dimmer switch. She is obviously very bright to think of that (oh, no! I think there's an unintentional pun there. It WAS unintentional, honest!).
Well, Clare has suggested it might mean don't use it with a dimmer switch. She is obviously very bright to think of that (oh, no! I think there's an unintentional pun there. It WAS unintentional, honest!).However, I still prefer my interpretation of "Don't use when wearing black and white headphones".
Oh, by the way, concerning the zebra crossing of my 11 March blog, EDF Energy say it's nothing to do with them and an internal problem within the Council. And when I last went past, the crossing was still not in use ...
Jade Goody
As we listened to the news this morning, we heard that 1,000's were expected to line the streets as Jade Goody's funeral cortege went by. We decided not to join them. It wasn't a difficult decision. We didn't know her personally.
I have a lot of sympathy for her and admire the courage she showed in her life. Lucy Mangan in The Guardian wrote, "First Jade Goody was failed by her family, then by the school system and then by the collective imagination." In spite of those failures, she stood her ground, did much to bring into the open the scourge of cancer and brought some reality to 'reality' television.
But we won't be going to line the funeral route because I'm rather concerned at how we as a nation have started this public mourning for people we've never actually met. It seemed to take off with the death of Princess Diana and since then has become more and more the "thing to do."
What good does this collective grief mania do? Where will it lead? I'm afraid I don't know but I am a little concerned.
I have a lot of sympathy for her and admire the courage she showed in her life. Lucy Mangan in The Guardian wrote, "First Jade Goody was failed by her family, then by the school system and then by the collective imagination." In spite of those failures, she stood her ground, did much to bring into the open the scourge of cancer and brought some reality to 'reality' television.
But we won't be going to line the funeral route because I'm rather concerned at how we as a nation have started this public mourning for people we've never actually met. It seemed to take off with the death of Princess Diana and since then has become more and more the "thing to do."
What good does this collective grief mania do? Where will it lead? I'm afraid I don't know but I am a little concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)