|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 00:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote: On Jun 7, 5:33*am, Doug wrote: On Jun 5, 6:37*pm, Simon Mason wrote: On Jun 5, 6:22*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote: This outbreak has a very low incidence of infecting young children. That would be unusual if it were due to infected meat, but, as they do not normally form a significant part of the diet of young children, it is consistent with the source being fresh vegetables. Colin Bignell German beansprouts were the culprit. I've been eating them every day on holiday. In fact, here's our dinner in Heidelberg last Wednesday. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4587/jun013.jpg No it seems beansprouts have been exonerated. As we were then. I assume you mean as your were on holiday abroad - enjoying all the local sites, food, drink and experiences etc. Oh - No - you mean "as we were" being a sad ******* on a newsgroup you can't keep away from - are "we" your only friends? Simple really. -- Simple Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists. This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users. The actions of a true psycholist. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On 07/06/2011 09:14, Norman Wells wrote:
Doug wrote: On Jun 5, 6:37 pm, Simon Mason wrote: On Jun 5, 6:22 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote: This outbreak has a very low incidence of infecting young children. That would be unusual if it were due to infected meat, but, as they do not normally form a significant part of the diet of young children, it is consistent with the source being fresh vegetables. Colin Bignell German beansprouts were the culprit. I've been eating them every day on holiday. In fact, here's our dinner in Heidelberg last Wednesday. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4587/jun013.jpg No it seems beansprouts have been exonerated. The main sources of e- coli are farm animal food and waste products. "E. coli O104:H21 was discovered in 1982, when it caused an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea. It had infected hamburgers, and those affected had eaten these hamburgers not fully-cooked.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O104:H21 Well, jolly good for H21. Why didn't you quote the following bit that says: "An outbreak of E. coli responsible for at least 22 deaths in Northern Europe in May of 2011 was reported to be caused by _another_ O104 strain, Escherichia coli O104:H4"? There's a separate, surely more relevant Wikipedia page about that. The H4 strain of E. coli undoubtedly originated in animals, quite possibly humans. No-one denies that. But vegetables still remain the prime suspects as carriers. Do please tell us then why the Precautionary Principle, which you and your friends are so keen on promoting when it suits you, shouldn't apply here. Surely all vegetables should be immediately taken off the market throughout Europe until long term trials can show that they're completely safe? First of all, Doug doesn't have any friends, apart from Malcolm & Cressida Wright-Prat. Secondly he is a vegetablist & would stave if they did that. How many more deaths do vulnerable food users have to suffer as a result of doing nothing in this regard? ******* vegetable weapons... -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On Jun 7, 9:20*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 07/06/2011 05:33, Doug wrote: On Jun 5, 6:37 pm, Simon *wrote: On Jun 5, 6:22 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote: This outbreak has a very low incidence of infecting young children. That would be unusual if it were due to infected meat, but, as they do not normally form a significant part of the diet of young children, it is consistent with the source being fresh vegetables. Colin Bignell German beansprouts were the culprit. I've been eating them every day on holiday. In fact, here's our dinner in Heidelberg last Wednesday. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4587/jun013.jpg No it seems beansprouts have been exonerated. The main sources of e- coli are farm animal food and waste products. As I pointed out, if the source were meat, it would be expected to have infected more children than it has. Any food source may be infected by contact with a human carrier who does not practice good food hygiene. E. coli O104:H21 also infects children. "E. coli O104:H21 was discovered in 1982, when it caused an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea. It had infected hamburgers, and those affected had eaten these hamburgers not fully-cooked.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O104:H21 According to the World Health Organisation, bean sprouts are a specific hazard, even if this particular producer has been cleared: 'In recent years, the popularity of sprouted seeds has increased significantly owing to their nutritional value. However, reports of foodborne outbreaks associated with such raw vegetable sprouts have raised concerns among public health agencies and consumers. Outbreak investigations have indicated that pathogens found on sprouts most likely originate from the seeds. The seed may be contaminated in the field or during harvesting, storage or transportation. During the germination process in sprout production, low levels of pathogens present on seeds may quickly reach levels high enough to cause disease.' http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs125/en/ OK you have made your point but it seems now that the infections are not caused by sprouts so what next? Doug. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On Jun 7, 9:14*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote: On Jun 5, 6:37 pm, Simon Mason wrote: On Jun 5, 6:22 pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote: This outbreak has a very low incidence of infecting young children. That would be unusual if it were due to infected meat, but, as they do not normally form a significant part of the diet of young children, it is consistent with the source being fresh vegetables. Colin Bignell German beansprouts were the culprit. I've been eating them every day on holiday. In fact, here's our dinner in Heidelberg last Wednesday. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4587/jun013.jpg No it seems beansprouts have been exonerated. The main sources of e- coli are farm animal food and waste products. "E. coli O104:H21 was discovered in 1982, when it caused an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea. It had infected hamburgers, and those affected had eaten these hamburgers not fully-cooked.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O104:H21 Well, jolly good for H21. Why didn't you quote the following bit that says: "An outbreak of E. coli responsible for at least 22 deaths in Northern Europe in May of 2011 was reported to be caused by _another_ O104 strain, Escherichia coli O104:H4"? *There's a separate, surely more relevant Wikipedia page about that. The H4 strain of E. coli undoubtedly originated in animals, quite possibly humans. *No-one denies that. *But vegetables still remain the prime suspects as carriers. Do please tell us then why the Precautionary Principle, which you and your friends are so keen on promoting when it suits you, shouldn't apply here. Surely all vegetables should be immediately taken off the market throughout Europe until long term trials can show that they're completely safe? How many more deaths do vulnerable food users have to suffer as a result of doing nothing in this regard? You do go on don't you. You overlook the fact that one precautionary principle can override another. Hence starvation takes priority over infection. In this case the precautionary principle should only be applied to foods which in the recent past have been responsible for e-coli outbreaks and this would of course include meat and other animal products as well as veg. There would then remain sufficient foods to prevent starvation and properly cooked foods are completely safe anyway. Doug. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
Doug wrote:
OK you have made your point but it seems now that the infections are not caused by sprouts so what next? According to the precautionary principle that you espouse, we should surely remove all vegetables from the shelves throughout Europe until scientists can prove that they're completely safe. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On 08/06/2011 05:58, Doug wrote:
On Jun 7, 9:20 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote: On 07/06/2011 05:33, Doug wrote: On Jun 5, 6:37 pm, Simon wrote: On Jun 5, 6:22 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote: This outbreak has a very low incidence of infecting young children. That would be unusual if it were due to infected meat, but, as they do not normally form a significant part of the diet of young children, it is consistent with the source being fresh vegetables. Colin Bignell German beansprouts were the culprit. I've been eating them every day on holiday. In fact, here's our dinner in Heidelberg last Wednesday. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4587/jun013.jpg No it seems beansprouts have been exonerated. The main sources of e- coli are farm animal food and waste products. As I pointed out, if the source were meat, it would be expected to have infected more children than it has. Any food source may be infected by contact with a human carrier who does not practice good food hygiene. E. coli O104:H21 also infects children. Indeed, but in a normal outbreak it would do so in far greater numbers. This indicates that the source is not part of the usual diet of children. That is one reason they have been concentrating on raw vegetables. "E. coli O104:H21 was discovered in 1982, when it caused an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea. It had infected hamburgers, and those affected had eaten these hamburgers not fully-cooked.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O104:H21 According to the World Health Organisation, bean sprouts are a specific hazard, even if this particular producer has been cleared: 'In recent years, the popularity of sprouted seeds has increased significantly owing to their nutritional value. However, reports of foodborne outbreaks associated with such raw vegetable sprouts have raised concerns among public health agencies and consumers. Outbreak investigations have indicated that pathogens found on sprouts most likely originate from the seeds. The seed may be contaminated in the field or during harvesting, storage or transportation. During the germination process in sprout production, low levels of pathogens present on seeds may quickly reach levels high enough to cause disease.' http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs125/en/ OK you have made your point but it seems now that the infections are not caused by sprouts so what next? That is not quite true. Initial trials, involving 23 of 40 samples taken from current production, showed no evidence of infection. If the tests had proved positive, they would have pinpointed the farm as the source of the infection but the fact that they were negative does not mean it is in the clear. That will require the results from longer term testing on the remaining samples and from tests on samples of older production and packaging. The German authorities are confident that there is a clear trail of evidence leading back to this farm, so they are exepcting the longer term testing to show evidence of the E.Coli infection originating there. Colin Bignell |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
Doug wrote:
On Jun 7, 9:14 am, "Norman Wells" wrote: The H4 strain of E. coli undoubtedly originated in animals, quite possibly humans. No-one denies that. But vegetables still remain the prime suspects as carriers. Do please tell us then why the Precautionary Principle, which you and your friends are so keen on promoting when it suits you, shouldn't apply here. Surely all vegetables should be immediately taken off the market throughout Europe until long term trials can show that they're completely safe? How many more deaths do vulnerable food users have to suffer as a result of doing nothing in this regard? You do go on don't you. Me?!!!! You overlook the fact that one precautionary principle can override another. Hence starvation takes priority over infection. Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary principles? Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a reliable source and reference? In this case the precautionary principle should only be applied to foods which in the recent past have been responsible for e-coli outbreaks and this would of course include meat and other animal products as well as veg. There would then remain sufficient foods to prevent starvation Er, hang on. If you remove all the animal and plant kingdoms from availability, what's left to eat? No, the only sensible way of proceeding is to remove all veg. They're the only things under suspicion in the current fatal outbreak, so they're the only things that need to be dealt with. Removing them completely throughout Europe wouldn't cause any starvation either. It's therefore a sensible and proportionate response to the crisis. Veg can return to the shelves when scientists can prove they're completely safe. After all, we don't want any more infections, do we? and properly cooked foods are completely safe anyway. They always were. But, you see, you can't make people cook things properly. There are freaks out there who think raw vegetable matter is appetising, and whatever you say, you won't get them to boil their lettuce. So, the only answer is to remove all vegetables before they fall into their hands, isn't it?. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On Jun 8, 9:45*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote: On Jun 7, 9:14 am, "Norman Wells" wrote: The H4 strain of E. coli undoubtedly originated in animals, quite possibly humans. No-one denies that. But vegetables still remain the prime suspects as carriers. Do please tell us then why the Precautionary Principle, which you and your friends are so keen on promoting when it suits you, shouldn't apply here. Surely all vegetables should be immediately taken off the market throughout Europe until long term trials can show that they're completely safe? How many more deaths do vulnerable food users have to suffer as a result of doing nothing in this regard? You do go on don't you. Me?!!!! You overlook the fact that one precautionary principle can override another. Hence starvation takes priority over infection. Oh, I see. *Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary principles? Where is it all set out? *Can you give any evidence, especially a reliable source and reference? It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which is causing harm. In this case the precautionary principle should only be applied to foods which in the recent past have been responsible for e-coli outbreaks and this would of course include meat and other animal products as well as veg. There would then remain sufficient foods to prevent starvation Er, hang on. *If you remove all the animal and plant kingdoms from availability, what's left to eat? At last you have finally realised you do not remove ALL foods. No, the only sensible way of proceeding is to remove all veg. *They're the only things under suspicion in the current fatal outbreak, so they're the only things that need to be dealt with. *Removing them completely throughout Europe wouldn't cause any starvation either. *It's therefore a sensible and proportionate response to the crisis. Wrong. As I have already stated, you only remove foods which have been implicated in e-coli outbreaks in the past, which is known to include some meat as well as veg. Veg can return to the shelves when scientists can prove they're completely safe. *After all, we don't want any more infections, do we? and properly cooked foods are completely safe anyway. They always were. *But, you see, you can't make people cook things properly. There are freaks out there who think raw vegetable matter is appetising, and whatever you say, you won't get them to boil their lettuce. What about fruit? Without some raw food people would be less healthy, as you probably seem to be with your opposition to all veg.. So, the only answer is to remove all vegetables before they fall into their hands, isn't it?. You are still being persistently wrong. See above. Doug. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
Doug wrote:
On Jun 8, 9:45 am, "Norman Wells" wrote: Doug wrote: On Jun 7, 9:14 am, "Norman Wells" wrote: The H4 strain of E. coli undoubtedly originated in animals, quite possibly humans. No-one denies that. But vegetables still remain the prime suspects as carriers. Do please tell us then why the Precautionary Principle, which you and your friends are so keen on promoting when it suits you, shouldn't apply here. Surely all vegetables should be immediately taken off the market throughout Europe until long term trials can show that they're completely safe? How many more deaths do vulnerable food users have to suffer as a result of doing nothing in this regard? You overlook the fact that one precautionary principle can override another. Hence starvation takes priority over infection. Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary principles? Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a reliable source and reference? It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which is causing harm. Like protests causing damage then. And squatters, and animal rights activists, and killer vegetable weapons? Why don't any of those figure in your application of the precautionary principle as you've defined it? 'Self-evident' is all a bit airy-fairy, isn't it? It means exactly what you and your mates want it to mean. What I want is some hard and fast rule, not some random evaluation made by unrepresentative, unidentified hippies. So, tell us again about the precautionary principle, and the hierarchy of precautionary principles that you say exists. In this case the precautionary principle should only be applied to foods which in the recent past have been responsible for e-coli outbreaks and this would of course include meat and other animal products as well as veg. There would then remain sufficient foods to prevent starvation Er, hang on. If you remove all the animal and plant kingdoms from availability, what's left to eat? At last you have finally realised you do not remove ALL foods. It was you who said 'meat and other animal products as well as veg', not me. I've only ever said that killer vegetables should be removed from the shelves. Under the precautionary principle of course. No, the only sensible way of proceeding is to remove all veg. They're the only things under suspicion in the current fatal outbreak, so they're the only things that need to be dealt with. Removing them completely throughout Europe wouldn't cause any starvation either. It's therefore a sensible and proportionate response to the crisis. Wrong. As I have already stated, you only remove foods which have been implicated in e-coli outbreaks in the past, which is known to include some meat as well as veg. No, not the current strain which is "not found in the digestive track of cows but in that of humans" as I've quoted before from an article to which you referred. No justification for removing meat therefore. Veg can return to the shelves when scientists can prove they're completely safe. After all, we don't want any more infections, do we? and properly cooked foods are completely safe anyway. They always were. But, you see, you can't make people cook things properly. There are freaks out there who think raw vegetable matter is appetising, and whatever you say, you won't get them to boil their lettuce. What about fruit? Without some raw food people would be less healthy, as you probably seem to be with your opposition to all veg.. The distinction between fruit and veg is very marginal, as rhubarb shows. Besides, they are almost always sold together by the same people, so the danger of cross-contamination is ever-present. The only safe way therefore is to remove all killer veg _and_ fruit from the shelves immediately, isn't it? Under the precautionary principle, of course. So, the only answer is to remove all vegetables before they fall into their hands, isn't it?. You are still being persistently wrong. See above. Do please explain the precautionary principle then, so that even I can understand it properly. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another car smashed into a house.
On Jun 9, 10:30*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote: On Jun 8, 9:45 am, "Norman Wells" wrote: Doug wrote: On Jun 7, 9:14 am, "Norman Wells" wrote: The H4 strain of E. coli undoubtedly originated in animals, quite possibly humans. No-one denies that. But vegetables still remain the prime suspects as carriers. Do please tell us then why the Precautionary Principle, which you and your friends are so keen on promoting when it suits you, shouldn't apply here. Surely all vegetables should be immediately taken off the market throughout Europe until long term trials can show that they're completely safe? How many more deaths do vulnerable food users have to suffer as a result of doing nothing in this regard? You overlook the fact that one precautionary principle can override another. Hence starvation takes priority over infection. Oh, I see. Who exactly decides this hierarchy of precautionary principles? Where is it all set out? Can you give any evidence, especially a reliable source and reference? It is usually self-evident and involves stopping something which is causing harm. Like protests causing damage then. *And squatters, and animal rights activists, and killer vegetable weapons? Why don't any of those figure in your application of the precautionary principle as you've defined it? Obviously they do, when they are prevented by the authorities and assuming they are actually harmful. 'Self-evident' is all a bit airy-fairy, isn't it? *It means exactly what you and your mates want it to mean. *What I want is some hard and fast rule, not some random evaluation made by unrepresentative, unidentified hippies. So, tell us again about the precautionary principle, and the hierarchy of precautionary principles that you say exists. Why is it you cannot understand the precautionary principle and how it works? In this case the precautionary principle should only be applied to foods which in the recent past have been responsible for e-coli outbreaks and this would of course include meat and other animal products as well as veg. There would then remain sufficient foods to prevent starvation Er, hang on. If you remove all the animal and plant kingdoms from availability, what's left to eat? At last you have finally realised you do not remove ALL foods. It was you who said 'meat and other animal products as well as veg', not me. I've only ever said that killer vegetables should be removed from the shelves. *Under the precautionary principle of course. See above. No, the only sensible way of proceeding is to remove all veg. They're the only things under suspicion in the current fatal outbreak, so they're the only things that need to be dealt with. Removing them completely throughout Europe wouldn't cause any starvation either. It's therefore a sensible and proportionate response to the crisis. Wrong. As I have already stated, you only remove foods which have been implicated in e-coli outbreaks in the past, which is known to include some meat as well as veg. No, not the current strain which is "not found in the digestive track of cows but in that of humans" as I've quoted before from an article to which you referred. No justification for removing meat therefore. You obviously have not been following the news again. Thus far scientific tests carried out on the beansprouts have not revealed any infection but they are banned circumstantially instead. It is quite possible that the infection is actually due to, some other foodstuff or has been transferred by human contact. The Germans also say that the actual source may never be found.. Veg can return to the shelves when scientists can prove they're completely safe. After all, we don't want any more infections, do we? and properly cooked foods are completely safe anyway. They always were. But, you see, you can't make people cook things properly. There are freaks out there who think raw vegetable matter is appetising, and whatever you say, you won't get them to boil their lettuce. What about fruit? Without some raw food people would be less healthy, as you probably seem to be with your opposition to all veg.. The distinction between fruit and veg is very marginal, as rhubarb shows. Besides, they are almost always sold together by the same people, so the danger of cross-contamination is ever-present. *The only safe way therefore is to remove all killer veg _and_ fruit from the shelves immediately, isn't it? *Under the precautionary principle, of course. See above. So, the only answer is to remove all vegetables before they fall into their hands, isn't it?. You are still being persistently wrong. See above. Do please explain the precautionary principle then, so that even I can understand it properly. You seem to be incapable of understanding despite the information placed before you. Why not give it a try? "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle So thus far the Germans have applied the precautionary principle to beansprouts alone and from one source only and without scientific evidence, which seems a little lax to say the least. They should be out there testing all foods which the infected people have eaten in common. I suspect that they have chosen beansprouts as an easy option which is likely to cause a minimum of panic among the general public and to the countries which are presently banning foods imported from Germany. BTW. What has this to do with cars crashing into houses and cycling?. Who started to go OT? Doug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another house smashed by a motorist. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 19 | September 5th 10 12:55 PM |
Another house smashed by a car. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 63 | May 29th 10 04:34 PM |
Smashed windscreen | Tina Peterson | UK | 5 | March 19th 09 10:11 AM |
I smashed my elbow | dogbowl | Unicycling | 32 | August 14th 05 05:09 PM |
Spoiler: he smashed it! | flyingdutch | Australia | 3 | September 30th 04 01:13 AM |