Magnetic children

Back in my Secondary School days I developed a lifelong passing interest in physics.

I have a general grasp of most concepts though I confess to being a little confused at these newfangled sub-atomic particles [what was wrong with electrons, neutrons and protons?].

One concept that caught me completely by surprise though is the latest discovery to hit the headlines – the phenomenon of the Magnetic Child.

I first got to hear about this strange feat of physics a few months ago when a report came out that smoke from a cigarette will actually blow in through a car window and somehow intensify around the back seat.  This strange behaviour flies in the face of my previous misconceptions that smoke would be governed by the Bernoulli Equation.

The Bernoulli Equation states that as the velocity of a fluid or gas increases, so its pressure decreases.  While this may seem a trivial bit of nonsense to most, it is after all what keeps those aircraft above us jetting through the sky instead of collapsing in a heap of mess on the ground.  It is also used in the carburetor of the petrol engine so we have quite a lot to thank it for.

But this new discovery puts all that science in danger. 

A car traveling at any speed will displace air which will have to speed up to get around the surface of the car in time to catch up with itself behind the vehicle.  And if you open a window, the pressure inside the car will drop slightly because of the decrease in pressure outside.  Have I lost you yet?

I have experimented with this in the past.  If Herself lights up a fag in the front seat while we are out for a merry jaunt, I open her window a mere half inch or so, and immediately I can see through the windscreen ahead as all the smoke is instantly sucked out.  I don't open the window more than that as I don't want her sucked out too.  Not yet anyway.

But somehow [according to the experts], if there is a child in the back seat all that smoke will be blow back in again, thereby defeating Bernoulli and choking the little brat.  Not only will it blow back in, but it will be super concentrated presumably as it has mixed with all the exhaust fumes from the car in front.

There can be only one explanation for this paradox of physics – somehow the child must be magnetic?  What else could explain this strange behaviour?  And somehow this magnetic property ceases instantly when the child reaches 18?

Even more confusing is that this magnetism hasn't been discovered before.  How come an aircraft with children on board doesn't plummet to earth?  How come a petrol engine will work even if there is a child near?  Indeed, how does a child even fly a kite?

None of it makes sense.

Unless of course the experts are wrong?

Nah!  It must be something else.

Educating vapers

I came across a study over the weekend.

For once, I think it has come to an excellent conclusion.

The study itself was to identify and describe vaping conventions.  It also wants to "raise awareness" of this potentially problematic practice.

Their method was extremely complex in that they did a Google search and counted the results, which doubtless not only took a lot of man-hours but probably cost the taxpayer a small fortune.

Now I found this gem of a research paper via Carl V Phillips, who treated the whole thing in a rather frivolous manner.  He seems to entirely miss the benefits contained within the conclusions.

You see, the recommendation within the paper is that all vaping conventions have a place set aside where the Antis can set up camp to educate these poor vaping wretches.  The adults who attend these conventions must be seriously ignorant if not severely retarded and they really must be told the error of their ways.

As far as I am aware, any gathering or convention must, as a condition of insurance or whatever, have for example a first aid tent and toilets.  It seems reasonable?  Can't be too careful?  So the Antis want to have their stall as a pre-condition also.

I think this is a really excellent idea.

I can picture the scene – hundreds of vaping conventions across the land, each one with its own little Anti Stall [placed neatly between the ladies and gents Portaloos] with two or three "educators" in attendance.

I wonder how many would come out alive?

It would be an excellent chance for a cull?

Who is the bad guy?

We are constantly hearing about the evils of Big Tobacco.

Big Tobacco, we are told, is in the business of selling a product that they know kills, and are desperately advertising to children to rebuild their customer base.

Let's take a look at this.

First of all, Big Tobacco are a business like any other business.  They are there to provide a product and to make a profit as a result.  Millions of people around the world enjoy that product and derive great benefit from it.  There has never been any conclusive proof that the product kills anyone, and there has never been a death where smoking has been proved to be the cause.  Every single death where smoking was claimed to be the cause could have been caused by other factors.

Big Tobacco must be one of the most heavily regulated businesses in the world.  Which ever way they turn, the Anti-Smoker movement snipes at them, introducing harsher regulations to the point of farce.  They are even being accused of making a deliberate attempt to undermine public health and are excluded from any discussions or debates in case they somehow might put up a defense.

Big Tobacco is not unlike Big Auto.  They too provide a product that is used by the millions and occasionally that product kills.  Unlike smoking however there is no doubt or confusion over the cause of death of those victims – they were driving a car at the time and they died as a result.  Cars also produce tons of carcinogenic pollution which in turn causes many deaths [passive driving?].  We never hear of Big Bad Auto however?  I wont even touch on Big Armaments.

But let's look at big Pharma.

Now here is an industry that produces a product that kills on a massive scale.  They claim their produce is for the benefit of health and wellbeing but in practice their primary concern is profiteering to the detriment of those with medical problems.  Their produce is foisted on a public who know little about what is being prescribed, yet that same public runs the risk of side effects which are rarely mentioned and in some cases produce lifetime debilitations.  One only has to look at Thalidomide or Chantix to see the dangers inherent in prescription drugs.  And even the lesser side effects frequently require further medication to alleviate the problem which is a win-win for Big Pharma.

Prescription drugs are now causing more deaths than illegal drugs or car accidents, yet we never hear a murmur as they are portrayed as "the good guys".  What's more, those deaths are documented unambiguous deaths, unlike "deaths from smoking" which are mere statistics produced by mathematical models and dubious questionnairs.

Big Tobacco is now excluded from any discussion or debate which directly affects their business.  They are shunned and even those who might have the remotest connection with them are treated like pariahs.  Yet Big Pharma are welcomed with open arms.  They spend millions lobbying on their own behalf forcing sales of questionable vaccinations and useless smoking cessation products and no one turns a hair.

The Anti-Smokers seems to think their killer argument is to ask "are you being funded by Big Tobacco?".

The response should be "are you being funded by Big Pharma?"!

Bessie Nolan

I would like to introduce you to Bessie Nolan.

She is one of Ireland's oldest, if not the oldest.


She is a sprightly 103 and will be 104 in a few weeks time.

Dammit but she's nearly old enough to be my grandmother!

She may be a little hard of hearing but by God she has all her marbles.

She really must give up the smoking though.  Doesn't she know the cigarettes will kill her? 

It's not too late though.

If she gives them up now she could live to a ripe old age.


Life before the Nanny State

There was a wee article in one of the papers recently.

Young Europeans ‘may lead shorter lives than their grandparents’

Being a grandparent, it naturally caught my eye.

So let's look at the "facts" as laid down by our good friends in the WHO –

Young people are likely to have a shorter lifespan than their grandparents because "over half of the population is overweight or obese, and that alcohol consumption and tobacco use remains ‘alarmingly high’".

The corollary of this argument surely must mean that the grandparents' side of the equation wasn't obese and had much lower alcohol and tobacco consumption?

I grew up in the latter half of the last century at a time when smoking was so common it was the norm.  The only places where smoking was banned [as far as I remember] was in churches and the lower deck of a double-decker bus.  Everyone smoked, from doctors to shopkeepers, from teachers to farmers.  When people came around to the house, the polite thing was to offer them a cigarette and a cup of tea.  When it came to diet, we had such delicacies as "dripping toast" [toast spread with the fat off boiled meat], we fried our food and fat was a normal part of our meat diet.   Anyone remember boiled bacon and cabbage?  We drank at a rate of pints and no one turned a hair.  In fact you could argue that our lifestyle was the very opposite of the lifestyle being rammed down our necks by the Nannies.

So here I am, a product of that generation, and I am supposed to have a longer lifespan that my grandchildren?  And their reason is that alcohol consumption and tobacco use remains ‘alarmingly high’?  Well, seeing as the pubs are closing at an alarming rate, I can only assume that most alcohol consumption takes place in the home, and hardly at the same rate as in the pubs in the old days.  As for tobacco consumption, that is only a fraction of the old levels and still falling so I don't know where the "alarmingly high" bit comes in except in the minds of the Nannies.

So smoking is way down, people have never been more diet conscious and alcohol is under attack.  Yet cancers are on the increase and they are worried about reduced lifespan?  There is something radically wrong here?

I see our Nanny doctors are on the warpath now.  They are demanding a tax on alcohol and fatty foods and an increase of €1 on a packet of fags, as if they weren't taxed enough already?  When are these arseholes going to realise that all their efforts to control us have either had no effect whatsoever or in most cases have been counterproductive and have had dire consequences?

They love to tell us that it's the Lower Orders with the lowest incomes who are smoking and drinking to excess.  Their efforts not only add to the financial burden of the poorer in society but try to deprive them of the few pleasures they have left.  Take away their rollies, their cans of gnat's piss lager and their pizzas and what do they have left?  Are they supposed to pass their winter evenings by going for a jolly old jog around the estate?

The one thing the WHO report got right is that life satisfaction is a good path to longevity.  Let people be happy and not only will they enjoy life more but will probably live longer.

Constant nagging, cajoling and bullying will only make people miserable.

Draw your own conclusions.