PDA

View Full Version : Common sense anyone?


Russ
07-10-2003, 21:09
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12813839,00.html

After reading the above, I had a thought. I live about 3 miles from the coast. If I went to the beach, in to the water and held my breath til I went all limp, could my family sue the coastgaurd for not putting up signs saying "Do not hold your breath underwater for longer than is neccessary"?

Shaun
07-10-2003, 21:30
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12813839,00.html

After reading the above, I had a thought. I live about 3 miles from the coast. If I went to the beach, in to the water and held my breath til I went all limp, could my family sue the coastgaurd for not putting up signs saying "Do not hold your breath underwater for longer than is neccessary"?


:rofl: I did think it was a bit of a weak case. It doesn't take many brain cells to work out that if you breath in smoke (of any kind) you die :rolleyes:

Steve H
07-10-2003, 22:05
Its the "Lets sue all" attitude that everyones got...People need to take responsibility for there own actions, instead of crippling companies all the time.

Though crippling the tobacco companies isnt a bad idea! :idea: :eek:

Stuart W
07-10-2003, 22:11
Sorry, I felt I had to play devils advocate on this one...

OK, does anyone remember what cigarette advertising was like in the 50's?

We actually had adverts or 'information programmes' to tell us that smoking was good for your health, helping the lungs (of all things!) was one of the biggest bonuses!

This guy started smoking when it was considered 'cool', not just by his peers, but by the general medical council too.

OK, in today's society, you'd be hard pushed to convince anyone that you can smoke with no ill-effects to your health, because we have so much information about the dangers of smoking thrust down our throats on a daily basis.

So, I think the thing to think about here is how long ago he started and what his genuine beliefs were at that point.

If in 50 yrs time we are told that Milk is geneticaly dangerous, would you like to be told that you cannot do anything to sue the dairy's because everyone knows Milk is geneticaly dangerous?

NOTE: The milk thing is a scenario, milk is perfectly safe to drink. For now.

homealone
07-10-2003, 22:20
Its the "Lets sue all" attitude that everyones got...People need to take responsibility for there own actions, instead of crippling companies all the time.

Though crippling the tobacco companies isnt a bad idea! :idea: :eek:

Totally agree with your first point Steve. I work in the food industry, we try really hard to come up with an accurate ingredients list - but now have to put a warning that fish fingers contain raw fish on the pack for some customers. - Russ is right about "common sense".

But cripple the tobacco companies - lose all that tax money short term, but offset it against health benefits long term - that is another discussion:)

- declaring an interest I do smoke:o

Shaun
07-10-2003, 23:19
Stu, there are people out there now that are trying to make out that the Atkins diet is good for you, and that you should gorge yourself on fatty foods. ANYONE with a little common sense knows that this is not gonna be good for you.

People need to THINK before they do stuff. If I slash my wrists with a knife, can I sue the company that made it because it doesn't say not to on the handle! NO.

I'm sorry for her loss, but it is down to the husband for smoking not the company's for selling/advertising ciggys.

By the way I don't smoke and think we should introduce a rolling age limit on them to make them illegal.

Sorry, I felt I had to play devils advocate on this one...

OK, does anyone remember what cigarette advertising was like in the 50's?

We actually had adverts or 'information programmes' to tell us that smoking was good for your health, helping the lungs (of all things!) was one of the biggest bonuses!

This guy started smoking when it was considered 'cool', not just by his peers, but by the general medical council too.

OK, in today's society, you'd be hard pushed to convince anyone that you can smoke with no ill-effects to your health, because we have so much information about the dangers of smoking thrust down our throats on a daily basis.

So, I think the thing to think about here is how long ago he started and what his genuine beliefs were at that point.

If in 50 yrs time we are told that Milk is geneticaly dangerous, would you like to be told that you cannot do anything to sue the dairy's because everyone knows Milk is geneticaly dangerous?

NOTE: The milk thing is a scenario, milk is perfectly safe to drink. For now.

Steve H
07-10-2003, 23:27
Stu, there are people out there now that are trying to make out that the Atkins diet is good for you, and that you should gorge yourself on fatty foods. ANYONE with a little common sense knows that this is not gonna be good for you.

People need to THINK before they do stuff. If I slash my wrists with a knife, can I sue the company that made it because it doesn't say not to on the handle! NO.

I'm sorry for her loss, but it is down to the husband for smoking not the company's for selling/advertising ciggys.


I agree - And she should know that too, as she's decided to take up the case now.. Maybe if she'd attacked this when the company was actually promoting ciggy's in this way then.. she might have a case.

I dont think having a rolling age limit on cigs will make much difference.. My mates have all been smoking since about 12-13, and never had any trouble getting em.

Xaccers
07-10-2003, 23:58
Stu, there are people out there now that are trying to make out that the Atkins diet is good for you, and that you should gorge yourself on fatty foods. ANYONE with a little common sense knows that this is not gonna be good for you.


But the atkins diet doesn't tell you to gorge on fatty foods.
It says to cut out carbs which your body turns into fat.
Go back 50 years or so and most people were on the atkins diet, and heart disease and obecity were far lower than today.

Graham
08-10-2003, 00:13
Sorry, I felt I had to play devils advocate on this one...


Don't apologise, if you hadn't written that message I would have!

The tobacco companies have long known that they are selling (or pushing!) a product which is both addictive and harmful to the user.

They haven't done anything about it because, to do anything would just have left the open to claims that they knew about the dangers earlier. (If you market a cigarette which you claim is "safer" it clearly admits that they knew the old one was "unsafe")

They are now just engaging in desperate "rear guard" actions such as, as it mentions at the end of that report:

"In 1996, a judge cleared the way for Mrs McTear to continue her case after rejecting Imperial Tobacco's demand that she pay £2m in legal fees before suing them. The company had claimed research needed to defend the case would have cost £2m and take two years to complete."

This is blatantly an attempt to try to scare people out of suing, by threatening them with huge legal bills. American tobacco companies have already used these and every other possible legal (and not so legal) delaying tactic they can to protect their profits as long as possible.

Shaun
08-10-2003, 00:14
But the atkins diet doesn't tell you to gorge on fatty foods.
It says to cut out carbs which your body turns into fat.
Go back 50 years or so and most people were on the atkins diet, and heart disease and obecity were far lower than today.

Go back 50 years and most people didn't lead sedentary lives and died ALOT younger.

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 00:52
Stu, there are people out there now that are trying to make out that the Atkins diet is good for you, and that you should gorge yourself on fatty foods. ANYONE with a little common sense knows that this is not gonna be good for you.

People need to THINK before they do stuff. If I slash my wrists with a knife, can I sue the company that made it because it doesn't say not to on the handle! NO.

I'm sorry for her loss, but it is down to the husband for smoking not the company's for selling/advertising ciggys.

By the way I don't smoke and think we should introduce a rolling age limit on them to make them illegal.
You are missing the point.
I agree that due to education we now all know smoking to be bad, but 50+ years ago, we wern't so well informed.

Or to put it another way, do you think we should drop the "SMOKING KILLS" on every pack, because we all know it does?

Chris
08-10-2003, 00:58
Don't apologise, if you hadn't written that message I would have!

The tobacco companies have long known that they are selling (or pushing!) a product which is both addictive and harmful to the user.

They haven't done anything about it because, to do anything would just have left the open to claims that they knew about the dangers earlier. (If you market a cigarette which you claim is "safer" it clearly admits that they knew the old one was "unsafe")

They are now just engaging in desperate "rear guard" actions such as, as it mentions at the end of that report:

"In 1996, a judge cleared the way for Mrs McTear to continue her case after rejecting Imperial Tobacco's demand that she pay £2m in legal fees before suing them. The company had claimed research needed to defend the case would have cost £2m and take two years to complete."

This is blatantly an attempt to try to scare people out of suing, by threatening them with huge legal bills. American tobacco companies have already used these and every other possible legal (and not so legal) delaying tactic they can to protect their profits as long as possible.
Can we talk about hot McDonald's coffee again ... go on, canwecanwecanwe ... pleeeze ... ;)

ian@huth
08-10-2003, 01:06
I have been smoking since I was a teenager and will probably die of a smoking related disease. Which manufacturer should I sue and how can I prove that it was that manufacturers cigarettes that caused the problems.

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 01:07
Go back 50 years and most people didn't lead sedentary lives and died ALOT younger.

Go back fifty years and you'd be rich, having been the first person to travel through time :p

Seriously though... go back 50 years and all the cuts of meat we buy today would look somewhat different. We had only just got over rationing food. Most kids had only just seen bananas.

We were told smoking was good for us and it would make our lungs healthy.

Go back a little further and you would have been told to put butter on a burn!

Jerrek
08-10-2003, 07:52
Only half a million pounds? That is peanuts. We have lawsuits going through at $28 billion...

Scarlett
08-10-2003, 10:07
Can we talk about hot McDonald's coffee again ... go on, canwecanwecanwe ... pleeeze ... ;)

Okay, that one was a unique situation the MaccyD's (as all were at the time) in question were keeping their coffee at a much higher temprature than they should have.

foir full details see here (http://www.mannco.com/mcdonalds_coffe.htm)

timewarrior2001
08-10-2003, 10:10
Only half a million pounds? That is peanuts. We have lawsuits going through at $28 billion...


The point is we are realistic.


OK as much as a sympathise with this lady and feel for her loss, I really think that this case isnt in the public interest, is not feasible, and will not win in court.

If she was to win, tobacco companies would have to close, there would be NO cigarettes or cigars etc. The government would loose Billions in tax and then have to offset that by a crippling increase in income tax.

No judge that aspires getting into the house of lords will ever defy a gov or remove a major taxable product form the market.


This kind of case stupifies me, I may as well sue because the gov allows me to buy a product that may kill me. Bizarre to say the least.

The Diplomat
08-10-2003, 11:23
OK...

Can someone tell me please, if smoking causes fatal diseases, why doesn't EVERYONE who smokes die of smoking related diseases?

Scarlett
08-10-2003, 11:31
OK...

Can someone tell me please, if smoking causes fatal diseases, why doesn't EVERYONE who smokes die of smoking related diseases?

Because its not an absolute relationship, its all to do with probabilities. Smoking dramatiacally increases the probability that you will contract certain diseases/ illness's.
The reason they say the smoking causes fatal diseases is that poeple who would most likely have died of old age at 80 will die of cancer aged 35 due to smoking.

Scarlett
08-10-2003, 11:46
The point is we are realistic.
OK as much as a sympathise with this lady and feel for her loss, I really think that this case isnt in the public interest, is not feasible, and will not win in court.

The case is the the ciggy companies all sold cigaretes throught the 40's, 50's and 60's and at the time were WELL aware of the health hazards but chose not to tell consumers/govenments. they paid for the research and supressed it. It's in the public interest because its about certain companies behaviour in the past and all they have done is to fight, through, the courts to say that 'its not our fault'. Basically, they lied and behaved shamefully in the past and now all they want to do is wash there hands of the resultant issues.


If she was to win, tobacco companies would have to close, there would be NO cigarettes or cigars etc. The government would loose Billions in tax and then have to offset that by a crippling increase in income tax.


The tobacco companies have lost in the USA and yet they still exist. If they did close then the government would save billions in not having to treat smoking related illness


No judge that aspires getting into the house of lords will ever defy a gov or remove a major taxable product form the market.


There is no way that the ciggy Co's will go out of business due to these court cases. this won't really come into it.


This kind of case stupifies me, I may as well sue because the gov allows me to buy a product that may kill me. Bizarre to say the least.


No. the case is about a company selling a product that they know will harm people but not advising them. Infact, they denmied the link until they were finally presented with conclusive proof from independant sources. the court action in America then managed to find the proof that they had known for years about the risks.

timewarrior2001
08-10-2003, 12:55
The case is the the ciggy companies all sold cigaretes throught the 40's, 50's and 60's and at the time were WELL aware of the health hazards but chose not to tell consumers/govenments. they paid for the research and supressed it. It's in the public interest because its about certain companies behaviour in the past and all they have done is to fight, through, the courts to say that 'its not our fault'. Basically, they lied and behaved shamefully in the past and now all they want to do is wash there hands of the resultant issues.

How is it in th epublic interest to drag out stuff that happened 30 or 40 years ago?


The tobacco companies have lost in the USA and yet they still exist. If they did close then the government would save billions in not having to treat smoking related illness

Have any had to pay out yet? I seem to remember one women getting awarded $6Billion. Now that was more than the total income for the company over several years. It simply will not happen.
The gov may or may not save Billions in treatment of smoking related illnesses, it will still have to hike up income tax to make up the shortfall on taxes not gained from tobacco



There is no way that the ciggy Co's will go out of business due to these court cases. this won't really come into it.

This is just a test case, the flood gates will open.



No. the case is about a company selling a product that they know will harm people but not advising them. Infact, they denmied the link until they were finally presented with conclusive proof from independant sources. the court action in America then managed to find the proof that they had known for years about the risks.

And how many other companies have done exactly the same thing? I would imagine ICI will be in some serious court action before long. What about the paint manufacturers that put lead into paint? What about builders that build on old waste tips and have made people ill from chemical deposits escaping?
Hell what about the whole DDT fiasco?

The people that smoke are making a choice, they do not have it thrust upon them, the information is there and has been for some considerable time now. They chose not to quit, that then makes it their own fault once the health implications became clear.
I smoke cigars, I enjoy it, I do it because I want to do so, I have utter contempt for anyone that shoves their oppinion into my face about me smoking. If they dont like it move away from me. I pay my National insurance contributions and therefor am entitled to the free medical care this brings. If the gov starts charging me for medical care because I am a smoker I will reduce or cease my national insurance contributions.

Chris
08-10-2003, 13:45
Okay, that one was a unique situation the MaccyD's (as all were at the time) in question were keeping their coffee at a much higher temprature than they should have.

foir full details see here (http://www.mannco.com/mcdonalds_coffe.htm)I know, Graham and I had a discussion about it in a previous thread. My belief however is that regardless how hot the coffee was, the over-riding responsibility is on the customer not to spill it. Surely it's common sense to assume hot coffee will injure you if spilled, and treat it accordingly (ie not try to open it while grasping it between your knees in a car) ? On appeal, blame was set 80% against McD and 20% against the injured party. This, to me, is perverse. When I make coffee at home I make it with boiling water - hotter even than it is stored by McDs. Does that mean, if a guest in my house spills it and is scalded, it's my fault? No, because they assumed I boiled a kettle to make their coffee.

Scarlett
08-10-2003, 14:13
How is it in th epublic interest to drag out stuff that happened 30 or 40 years ago?


How about a murder that happend 30/40 years ago, is it still in the public interest to drag that out if the required evidence has come to light to allow you to convict the murderer ?


Have any had to pay out yet? I seem to remember one women getting awarded $6Billion. Now that was more than the total income for the company over several years. It simply will not happen.
The gov may or may not save Billions in treatment of smoking related illnesses, it will still have to hike up income tax to make up the shortfall on taxes not gained from tobacco


I suspect you find that she hasn't got any of the money yet due to legal appeals.


This is just a test case, the flood gates will open.


This is a fairly unique case where the person in question was able to prove that they were taken in by the advertising at the time that the company knew that smoking would kill a percentage of the people who took it up and yet they continued to promote it. In any case, Just because its been 30/40 years that doesn't excuse the way the company behaved and by dismissing the case, you are saying that it didn't matter that they are responsible for thousands of deaths.


And how many other companies have done exactly the same thing? I would imagine ICI will be in some serious court action before long. What about the paint manufacturers that put lead into paint? What about builders that build on old waste tips and have made people ill from chemical deposits escaping?
Hell what about the whole DDT fiasco?


If your looking for an equivilant, try asbesos. At the m,oment the insurance industry in in dire straits because of the liability of those working with asbestos in the past. the reaction of the companies has been pretty much the same as the tabacco companies. Appeal through every court that your not responsible. In some cases, Bankcrupt the company in question once it appears that you'll have to pay out. (they do this by transferring most of the assets/business to a new company and then hang the shell of a company 'out to dry'.


The people that smoke are making a choice, they do not have it thrust upon them, the information is there and has been for some considerable time now. They chose not to quit, that then makes it their own fault once the health implications became clear.


The issue here is that the person started BEFORE the health implication became clear and then buy the time they did he was addicted to them.


I smoke cigars, I enjoy it, I do it because I want to do so, I have utter contempt for anyone that shoves their oppinion into my face about me smoking. If they dont like it move away from me. I pay my National insurance contributions and therefor am entitled to the free medical care this brings. If the gov starts charging me for medical care because I am a smoker I will reduce or cease my national insurance contributions.

Free medical care... Have you ever tried to get a quote for health care from BUPA or life assurance. If you go for a quote for a smoker and then non-smoker you see the difference in cost.The thoery is that you already pay more for you health care through the tax on the ciggy packs.
As for you comment about people moving awayt from you if they don't like it I assume that you mean if you are in a desiganted smoking area e.g. in a pub etc in which case feel free, that's what they're there for.

Scarlett
08-10-2003, 14:20
I know, Graham and I had a discussion about it in a previous thread. My belief however is that regardless how hot the coffee was, the over-riding responsibility is on the customer not to spill it. Surely it's common sense to assume hot coffee will injure you if spilled, and treat it accordingly (ie not try to open it while grasping it between your knees in a car) ? On appeal, blame was set 80% against McD and 20% against the injured party. This, to me, is perverse. When I make coffee at home I make it with boiling water - hotter even than it is stored by McDs. Does that mean, if a guest in my house spills it and is scalded, it's my fault? No, because they assumed I boiled a kettle to make their coffee.

But the difference between your house and McDonalds is
a) The coffee was only kept that hot to literally squeeze more blood from the stone.
b) McDonalds cups are designed to keep the heat in unlike the mugs that you have at home.
c) I didn't think that they had warnings on the side of the cups at that point.

Don't forget, she only took them to court when they refused to pay her medical expenses. She wasn't gold digging (like some people have done)

timewarrior2001
08-10-2003, 14:32
As for you comment about people moving awayt from you if they don't like it I assume that you mean if you are in a desiganted smoking area e.g. in a pub etc in which case feel free, that's what they're there for.

How about designated No smoking areas? why dont people sod off into them?

Lol it does get me riled, I smoke it isnt of any concern to any one else.

When or rather IF I get lung cancer It will be my fault, no one elses but my own. I could always give up like that ladies husband could have, he didnt tough **** on him is the bottom line no matter how harsh it seems.

He died 10 years ago, and I'm guessing his family doctor is willing to guanrantee that this lung cancer was caused by smoking, thats a shame, because lung cancer can be caused by other factors too. Hell I recently lost a cousing who happened to have lung cancer as a secondary cancer she never once smoked a cigarette in her life. It look like she is a victim of the negative (i think) ion induced cancer as her bedroom was pretty much next to an electricity substation. Should we sue the electric company?

As I said before, I am sorry for this ladies loss, but dragging a joke of a case like this through court is not going to make the slightest bit of difference I personally think it will be thrown out.

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 14:35
<SNIP!> Hell I recently lost a cousing who happened to have lung cancer as a secondary cancer she never once smoked a cigarette in her life. It look like she is a victim of the negative (i think) ion induced cancer as her bedroom was pretty much next to an electricity substation. Should we sue the electric company?<SNIP!>

Uhm, well, YES!

If you can prove that the electricity company is directly responsible for the cancer, then most definatley YES!.

timewarrior2001
08-10-2003, 14:42
Uhm, well, YES!

If you can prove that the electricity company is directly responsible for the cancer, then most definatley YES!.


But why? are we supposed to live without electricity? think carefully about it.

I beleive that Emma was unfortunate enough to be genetically suseptable (sp?) to cancer.
What are the electric comapny s'posed to do? prevent elecricity emmitting negative ions? thats impossible, they can line the substations with lead that only lowers the amount, it does not prevent the emitting of the harmfull Ions.
They then run the risk of lead intoxication etc. It wouldnt ever stop.

I think we as a country need to nip compensation culture in the bud before we become too like the Americans where they seem to issue civil law suits as often as they eat hot dinners.
Unlike this gentleman who died most likely through smoking Emma had little choice, we have very little chance of proving the Ion thing anyway as the research is increasingly showing.

Plus I would rather Emma was still here, to see her brother and sisters, her baby nephew and neice and the rest of our family. There isnt enough money in the world that can replace what we have lost.

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 14:51
OK, how about make the electricity companies more responsible about the placement of grid towers?

Or, change building permissions so residential housing cannot be near existing pilons & vice versa?

Obviously I'm not saying the electricity companies need to find another medium for transfering power to peoples homes, just to be a bit more responsible about it.

Same applies for the newer communication towers popping up everywhere. If Orange (or whoever) put a tower up at the end of my street and people start dropping dead with various forms of cancer, I'd be first in line to put a stop to it.

Or am I just being silly?

Shaun
08-10-2003, 15:11
You are missing the point.
I agree that due to education we now all know smoking to be bad

Lets run with your argument here, so if we didn't know smoking was bad then is it the cigarette companies fault (if they didn't know).

But saying that, we have known for thousands of years that smoke inhalation (of any type) kills you, thats where the common sense comes in, so whats the big deal? :confused:

Stuart
08-10-2003, 15:38
Stu, there are people out there now that are trying to make out that the Atkins diet is good for you, and that you should gorge yourself on fatty foods. ANYONE with a little common sense knows that this is not gonna be good for you.
The Atkins diet is safe, if it is done under Medical Supervision. It is not safe if the person on it is not supervised.


People need to THINK before they do stuff. If I slash my wrists with a knife, can I sue the company that made it because it doesn't say not to on the handle! NO.
They do, and they need to take responsibility when things go wrong. However, the example you slitting your wrists. You are using the knife in a way it is not intended to be used. Cigarettes whether used correctly or not can kill. Still, maybe knives should come with a "Warning: Sharp object" sticker on the packet.

I'm sorry for her loss, but it is down to the husband for smoking not the company's for selling/advertising ciggys.

By the way I don't smoke and think we should introduce a rolling age limit on them to make them illegal.
I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s, but I do know that little (if anything) was said about the dangers of smoking. In fact, it was actively encouraged until the 70s.

Anyway, I am a non smoker (tried it & I didn't like it), and smoking doesn't really bother me one way or the other..

kronas
08-10-2003, 16:03
i think smoking is harmful to your health if you smoke excessively you will see the ill affects much sooner then smoking here and there i dont know what it was like 50 years ago but if i was born back in them days i dont think i would smoke because its like car fumes you inhale it alot i believe it will affect your health

did they really say back then that smoking was good for you or just didnt tell you of the dangers or they werent known of ?

downquark1
08-10-2003, 16:10
did they really say back then that smoking was good for you or just didnt tell you of the dangers or they werent known of ?
I think they said it was good because it reduced stress.

Shaun
08-10-2003, 16:42
The Atkins diet is safe, if it is done under Medical Supervision. It is not safe if the person on it is not supervised.

I'm sorry to say Stu that it really is a myth that the Atkins diet is safe, most dietitians in the world agree that it is harmful to you in the long run.

The Times did a report on it, I'll see if I can dig it out.

Regardless, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the Atkins diet and smoking must be bad for you. Believe you me, breathing in any sort of smoke will kill you, it may be made to look glamorous but it is still deadly.

I have no problem with people that want to smoke, thats fine, let them, the same as people that want to take drugs or people that want to take no exercise and eat cream cakes all the time. But these people need to take responsibility for their own actions, this is the problem with our country at the moment, people expect everyone else to take on the responsibility.

I digress but one example is parents that let their children skive (sp??) school and then when asked why they let them cant answer you, they just say the school/government/teacher should do more. :blah: :blah: :blah:

basa
08-10-2003, 17:27
Regardless, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the Atkins diet and smoking must be bad for you.

Bit of a bold statement dellwear.

All the Atkins diet does is prohibit carbohydrates (the bodies normal source of energy) which forces it to then locate and burn stored fat which results in weight loss. Once the body through starvation of carbs enters the state of 'ketosis' and stored fat burning the diet asks for slow controlled re-introduction of carbs to a more normal level. Nothing wrong with that.

As regards smoking, it is now known to be harmful. But years ago (when I started) it was not considered harmful and was actively promoted by all. Unfortunately as a highly addictive agent it is not that easy to cut out.

Many now consider the saturated fats of butter substitutes to be actually more harmful than natural butter !! Although they might still be promoted as healthy.

Times and knowlege change.

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 17:33
Lets run with your argument here, so if we didn't know smoking was bad then is it the cigarette companies fault (if they didn't know).

But saying that, we have known for thousands of years that smoke inhalation (of any type) kills you, thats where the common sense comes in, so whats the big deal? :confused:

Point is, we didn't know it was bad the tobacco companies did.

Oh, and smoke inhalation of *ANY* type eh?

:rolleyes:

My 11yr old daughter has asthma and needs to use a nebuliser now and again. This is a machine that produces smoke, which is made up of oxygen and subutimol.

You'd better get in touch with the NHS and tell them how dangerous this is.

Chris
08-10-2003, 17:38
Bit of a bold statement dellwear.

All the Atkins diet does is prohibit carbohydrates (the bodies normal source of energy) which forces it to then locate and burn stored fat which results in weight loss. Once the body through starvation of carbs enters the state of 'ketosis' and stored fat burning the diet asks for slow controlled re-introduction of carbs to a more normal level. Nothing wrong with that.

This sounds sensible, although an increasing number of dieticians have stated that this description of how it 'works' is based on 'poor science'. Additionally, even if it does work (and I'm prepared to accept the anecdotal evidence that it can work, in some cases at least), there is the fact that the diet calls for people to massively increase their cholesterol intake. This is scientifically well known to be dangerous. (Atkins himself died of a heart attack, AFAIK).

Stuart
08-10-2003, 17:42
I'm sorry to say Stu that it really is a myth that the Atkins diet is safe, most dietitians in the world agree that it is harmful to you in the long run.

The Times did a report on it, I'll see if I can dig it out.

Actually, most forms of diet are dangerous if taken to extremes.

timewarrior2001
08-10-2003, 17:53
This sounds sensible, although an increasing number of dieticians have stated that this description of how it 'works' is based on 'poor science'. Additionally, even if it does work (and I'm prepared to accept the anecdotal evidence that it can work, in some cases at least), there is the fact that the diet calls for people to massively increase their cholesterol intake. This is scientifically well known to be dangerous. (Atkins himself died of a heart attack, AFAIK).


I'm looking at doing the atkins diet, and all the info I have nowhere does it state you MUST increase your cholestorol intake.
It does rely upon proteins, and as a result more water must be drank to help your body deal with this.
It does however ask you to stop your carbohydrate intake for 14 days afterwards you introduce it at 20Mg per day. This converts your metabolism over to ketosis (burning of bodies own fat for energy). It does however warn you that during the carbo withdrawel stage you will feel unwell, lethargic etc, but this is apparently normal.

There is nothing but speculation, the medical profession dont like it because it breaks every rule thye have been trying to teach us. The fact remains that the atkins diet does work and the weight loss can sometimes be dramatic.

Chris
08-10-2003, 17:57
There is nothing but speculation, the medical profession dont like it because it breaks every rule thye have been trying to teach us. The fact remains that the atkins diet does work and the weight loss can sometimes be dramatic.
Yes, I have seen it work ... but I have seen the person on whom I have seen it work eat a breakfast of two sausages every morning. The diet may not ask you to increase your cholesterol, but if you eat nowt but sausages, this is what is going to happen.

timewarrior2001
08-10-2003, 18:05
Yes, I have seen it work ... but I have seen the person on whom I have seen it work eat a breakfast of two sausages every morning. The diet may not ask you to increase your cholesterol, but if you eat nowt but sausages, this is what is going to happen.


Yeah but you dont have to be on the Atkins diet to live on sausages alone lol :)

Shaun
08-10-2003, 18:25
My 11yr old daughter has asthma and needs to use a nebuliser now and again. This is a machine that produces smoke, which is made up of oxygen and subutimol.

You'd better get in touch with the NHS and tell them how dangerous this is.

Stu, that isn't smoke it is a vapour, if you gonna start throwing statements like that around then I suggest you get your facts right. Smoke is produces when somthing is burnt, the subutimol isn't burn it is vaporised to enable it to enter the lungs and the blood stream. :rolleyes:

I know what smoke inhalation can do, I nearly died of it when I was 12.

As far as the Atkins diet is concerned as Towny said it is based on VERY bad science, and most of the weight lost is from you body using up your store of Glycogen not actually burning up fat. This is then replaced when you start eating carbs again.

Oh, and on another note, yes, it is now believed that margarines have higher levels of oxidants and the like but that must be offset by the lower levels of cholesterol they contain Things like that are swings and roundabouts I'm afraid.

There is no one on this planet that will convince me that the Atkins diet is safe with the evidence that is being produced most of which is printed to increase sales of the book.

Many dietitians are horrified at the advice given in the Atkins book and my Tutor (who's a biochemist) believes there are going to be some very ill people in the future.

I'm afraid that the only way to loose wait safely is to eat a balanced calorie controlled diet and to exercise. I hate it as much as everyone else, I'm having to do it at the moment to loose some wait I have put on but it has to be done, there is no magic cure, no short cuts. :(

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 18:45
Stu, that isn't smoke it is a vapour, if you gonna start throwing statements like that around then I suggest you get your facts right. Smoke is produces when somthing is burnt, the subutimol isn't burn it is vaporised to enable it to enter the lungs and the blood stream. :rolleyes:
<SNIP>

OK, smoked kippers?

Does it have to be inhaled or can it just be ingested?

How about the smoke from candles? they have no cancer warnings and we are lead to believe we can burn them freely around the house. Many romantic films depict many, many candles in a confined area. Is this safe?

Or the smoke from incense buned in churches around the world?

Enough of the pedantacism (if that's a word, I like it!).

Fact is, that in the 50's, we were told that smoking cigarettes was healthy.

Shaun
08-10-2003, 18:50
OK, smoked kippers?

Does it have to be inhaled or can it just be ingested?

How about the smoke from candles? they have no cancer warnings and we are lead to believe we can burn them freely around the house. Many romantic films depict many, many candles in a confined area. Is this safe?

Or the smoke from incense buned in churches around the world?

Enough of the pedantacism (if that's a word, I like it!).

Fact is, that in the 50's, we were told that smoking cigarettes was healthy.


Stu, now I remember just how pathetic you arguments can be!

I think you'll find that smoked fish can give you cancer! The smoking process increases the amount of Carbon 13 present and the radiation from this can indeed mutate the DNA in you cells.

This is about smoking not smoked fish, back on topic I think

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 18:52
Stu, now I remember just how pathetic you arguments can be!

I think you'll find that smoked fish can give you cancer! The smoking process increases the amount of Carbon 13 present and the radiation from this can indeed mutate the DNA in you cells.

This is about smoking not smoked fish, back on topic I think

You are the one off topic....

That post is all about fish. My post was about other products burned around the house and finished with the point you fail to address...

we were told smoking was healthy in the 50's.

Shaun
08-10-2003, 19:25
You are the one off topic....

That post is all about fish. My post was about other products burned around the house and finished with the point you fail to address...

we were told smoking was healthy in the 50's.

Stu your being told now by people that the Atkins diet is save and its not, maybe people should sue them too.

Smoke of any sort clogs your lungs up and stops the hemoglobin from delivering oxygen to the rest of your body. This is due to the chemical make up of hemoglobin (the chemical that helps transport oxygen throughout your body) and the fact that carbon monoxide will bind to it easier than oxygen. Carbon monoxide will also stay attached to the hemoglobin until the red blood cell is broken down inside your body, there is no process inside you to remove it and allow the hemoglobin to shuttle oxygen again.

This may or may not have been known in the 50/60s but common sense (yes that thing we all posses) dictates to me at lease that if smoke in a house fire will kill you, then smoke from a little white stick will kill you too.

Oh and as your so interested candle smoke is just as bad for you as any other, if you don't believe me then light one and hold a piece of white card/paper above it while it is lit (sufficiently high enough so you don't set it alight (don't want you to sue me do I!! :rolleyes: ) and after a couple of minutes have a look at the deposits on the paper.

Do people blindly believe stuff that is printed in advertisements? If so then they deserve everything they get. If you rely on being told what to do through out your life then your not much of a person are you. :(

edit Oh, yer and Stu, you were the one that asked if it was just breathing in smoke and brought your mate haddock into it :LOL:

Atomic22
08-10-2003, 19:58
just to get back on russ's original topic

[QUOTE=Russ D
After reading the above, I had a thought. I live about 3 miles from the coast. If I went to the beach, in to the water and held my breath til I went all limp, could my family sue the coastgaurd for not putting up signs saying "Do not hold your breath underwater for longer than is neccessary"?[/QUOTE]

no!
everything nowadays has to have a risk assessment , and the risk of someone doing what you suggest will already have been assessed as only a low to medium risk using the formula likelyhood x severity = risk...ie even though the severity is high , the likelyhood is low so the risk would be low to medium...measures to combat the risk would be taken into account ie lifeboats and lifeguards to reduce the risk further.....all this means that the coastguard has legally covered himself for whatever you do.....and if a lifeguard tries to save your life and fails , or succeeds but you have brain damage etc you or your family would find out no one in the uk has ever been successfully sued for giving first aid and would therefore get not a bean.

Chris
08-10-2003, 20:15
just to get back on russ's original topic
no!
everything nowadays has to have a risk assessment , and the risk of someone doing what you suggest will already have been assessed as only a low to medium risk using the formula likelyhood x severity = risk...ie even though the severity is high , the likelyhood is low so the risk would be low to medium...measures to combat the risk would be taken into account ie lifeboats and lifeguards to reduce the risk further.....all this means that the coastguard has legally covered himself for whatever you do.....and if a lifeguard tries to save your life and fails , or succeeds but you have brain damage etc you or your family would find out no one in the uk has ever been successfully sued for giving first aid and would therefore get not a bean.
This is called the 'Samaritan Principle' and is one of the many reasons why I'm glad I live in the UK and not the US.

Stuart W
08-10-2003, 20:27
dell-ware, you are missing the point.

Common knowledge today was specialist knowledge in the 50's.

Do you realy believe that the average guy on the street knew about hemoglobin in the 50's?

Shaun
08-10-2003, 22:12
dell-ware, you are missing the point.

Common knowledge today was specialist knowledge in the 50's.

Do you realy believe that the average guy on the street knew about hemoglobin in the 50's?

No, your the one that has miss the point, completely, the common sense bit is to do with knowing that smoke is poisonous, you don't need to know why.

50 years ago people knew that smoke from a house fire was poisonous, it doesn't take a huge leap to transfer this to cigarettes. There is no need for a degree in biology to work that out.

Stuart
09-10-2003, 00:49
50 years ago people knew that smoke from a house fire was poisonous, it doesn't take a huge leap to transfer this to cigarettes. There is no need for a degree in biology to work that out.
Yeah, but the tobacco companies were busy telling people it was safe to smoke. Plus, they had the various movie and TV stars smoking which made smoking "cool" in the eyes of teenagers, who, being teenagers (generalising here) just carried on when told not to partly because they were told not to.

Shaun
09-10-2003, 00:55
Yeah, but the tobacco companies were busy telling people it was safe to smoke. Plus, they had the various movie and TV stars smoking which made smoking "cool" in the eyes of teenagers, who, being teenagers (generalising here) just carried on when told not to partly because they were told not to.


Thats the thing, they decided to do it not anyone else. These people should take responsibility for their actions, I don't have a problem with them smoking, but to go and sue people for it is just not right :(

dieselking
09-10-2003, 01:16
Thats the thing, they decided to do it not anyone else. These people should take responsibility for their actions, I don't have a problem with them smoking, but to go and sue people for it is just not right :(


I agree. OK in the early 60s peoiple didn't know the health dangers of smoking but in the mids 70s people were starting to be told of the damage to their health smoking cause. This man could have decided to stop long before he died but chose not to, I don't think his wife has any right at all to sue

Also, Why has it taken her 10 years to decide to sue????

Stuart
09-10-2003, 01:41
Also, Why has it taken her 10 years to decide to sue????
I don't think it did. The action was launched in 1993. It took three years for a judge to decide there is a case to answer, and seven years to get it to court. It does sometimes take a long time to get a civil case to court, particularly if one party is delaying the actiob to the point where the other party doesn't have the money to carry on with the case.

As I understand it, a delay this long is unusual, but certainly not unheard of.

Stuart W
09-10-2003, 10:34
No, your the one that has miss the point, completely, the common sense bit is to do with knowing that smoke is poisonous, you don't need to know why.

50 years ago people knew that smoke from a house fire was poisonous, it doesn't take a huge leap to transfer this to cigarettes. There is no need for a degree in biology to work that out.

So, when we all *knew* the world was flat I guess you would have somehow 'known' it wasn't?

In the 50's, your GP would have told you smoking is not harmfull.

With the luxury of hindsight, we know the doctors were wrong. But that is only with hindsight. Remeber, these doctors also told us to put butter on a burn, which we now know to be possibly the WORST thing to do.

When you visit your doctor, do you listen to what he has to say with his 5 years of specialist training and knowledge then just dismiss it because you know best?

PLEASE try to see the point I am making....
Tobacco companies KNEW smoking was dangerous but told us it was safe.
It wasn't until completely independant testing showed the dangers that *anyone* was aware.

Your analagy of "Smoke from fire kills us, so all smoke must be bad" is a damn poor one I'm afraid.
It is on par with "Peanuts can kill people therefore all nuts are poison".

Xaccers
09-10-2003, 11:17
I agree with what you say, but using that angle, how did the tobacco companies know it was bad for you?
They may have suspected, but would they actually do their own tests and risk proving that smoking is bad for you?

Just a thought

timewarrior2001
09-10-2003, 13:09
PLEASE try to see the point I am making....
Tobacco companies KNEW smoking was dangerous but told us it was safe.
It wasn't until completely independant testing showed the dangers that *anyone* was aware.



But the tobacco companies did not force anyone to smoke, they didnt insist on you buying their product, it was there, the choice whether to smoke or not was still your own. Any action you carry out on your own means any consequences are your own too.


In a previous post someone mentioned about law suites against people carryign out rescusitation and failing. It may be correct no one has yet been prosecuted but, if you try to say.....pull someones tongue out as they were choking on it and fail, you can be found guilty of manslaughter. If you for example move someone because you beleive they are in danger and in th eprocess you paralyse them it is YOU that will carry the can.

basa
09-10-2003, 13:35
But the tobacco companies did not force anyone to smoke, they didnt insist on you buying their product, it was there, the choice whether to smoke or not was still your own. Any action you carry out on your own means any consequences are your own too.

Oh come on !!!

If you bought a faulty car from a garage or dealer (whether its description represented it as safe or not) and you were injured as a result would you feel free to seek recompense from the seller ?? After all no one *forced* you to buy it ?

Damn right you would !

basa
09-10-2003, 13:41
In a previous post someone mentioned about law suites against people carryign out rescusitation and failing. It may be correct no one has yet been prosecuted but, if you try to say.....pull someones tongue out as they were choking on it and fail, you can be found guilty of manslaughter. If you for example move someone because you beleive they are in danger and in th eprocess you paralyse them it is YOU that will carry the can.

Again...In this scenario you would be acting as though you were a skilled person (i.e. medic) and should therefore be reasonably responsible for your actions.

Unfortunately most smokers are not (or were not) skilled chemists or medical researchers and could not have known their actions (i.e. smoking cigarettes) would harm anyone let alone themselves.

Shaun
09-10-2003, 15:16
But the tobacco companies did not force anyone to smoke, they didnt insist on you buying their product, it was there, the choice whether to smoke or not was still your own. Any action you carry out on your own means any consequences are your own too.

Thank you TW some sense at last.

Stu you just keep on brining in superfluous arguments into the discussion, first it was smoked fish and then the world being flat.

The fact still remains that people had a choice, they were not forced to smoke.

On another unrelated point, no I don't just blindly listen to anyone not even my GP. I have in the past researched for myself the illnesses I've had and made suggestions accordingly to my GP, who was pleasantly surprised and grateful that one of his patients bothered to take an interest in their illness

basa
09-10-2003, 15:27
The fact still remains that people had a choice, they were not forced to smoke.

People weren't forced to eat beef or live and work with asbestos, but 10 or whatever years down the line they develop the human form of BSE or asbestos related diseases they are suing.

Don't you get it ? When most people started smoking like me there were no know health risks.

Shaun
09-10-2003, 15:28
Unfortunately most smokers are not (or were not) skilled chemists or medical researchers and could not have known their actions (i.e. smoking cigarettes) would harm anyone let alone themselves.

Is it the chemist in me or am I being to smart for my own good, but surely you guys can see that smoke is dangerous for you, you don't need an sort of scientific tests to show that. Just look at someone who smokes and the related coughs and chest problems they get. Your not telling me that people were so dumb 50 years ago that they didn't see this sort of thing.

My grandmother is 65 and she said that when she was 18 people were being told that smoking was bad for you but people still started , thats their fault, not anyone else's. Incidentally this guy would be younger than my grandmother now so people were aware that smoking was bad for them when he started.


I really am sorry for her loss but that was his fault, and the same applies to people now.

Teenagers are made aware of the dangers of smoking in school, and on the side of packets of cigarettes but it doesn't stop hundreds of them starting everyday. That is their choice and they should stick by it rather than taking others to court.

Atomic22
09-10-2003, 19:29
But the tobacco companies did not force anyone to smoke, they didnt insist on you buying their product, it was there, the choice whether to smoke or not was still your own. Any action you carry out on your own means any consequences are your own too.


In a previous post someone mentioned about law suites against people carryign out rescusitation and failing. It may be correct no one has yet been prosecuted but, if you try to say.....pull someones tongue out as they were choking on it and fail, you can be found guilty of manslaughter. If you for example move someone because you beleive they are in danger and in th eprocess you paralyse them it is YOU that will carry the can.

wrong...
preserving life is paramount so if you move someone from danger and they are saved ,any after effects are seen as better than death.
attempting to stop someone choking by pulling out their tongue is basic first aid and as i said in an earlier post no one in the uk has been successfully sued for giving first aid whether it resulted in death or paralysis or anything else.

i agree with your stance on the tobacco companies though