| #1 | |
|
|
Smoking ban
I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's
with smoke units can not be used ? |
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <1185404400.399169.294780@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>,
Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> writes >I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's >with smoke units can not be used ? > Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? -- Jane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <S4CoJ2tMiDqGFAzS@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk>
Jane Sullivan <spamtrap@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <1185404400.399169.294780@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>, > Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> writes > >I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's > >with smoke units can not be used ? > > > > Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! Richard -- www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"Jane Sullivan" <spamtrap@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S4CoJ2tMiDqGFAzS@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk... > In message <1185404400.399169.294780@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>, Dragon > Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> writes >>I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's >>with smoke units can not be used ? >> > > Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > -- > Jane > British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden > http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > A friend from years ago had an exhibition layout where the track from the fiddle yard emerged, as usual, from a tunnel mouth. His trick was to blow out his cigar smoke as a train ran out. -- Regards John |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
beamendsltd wrote:
>>> >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > What crap Kevin Martin -- To Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > beamendsltd wrote: > > >>> > >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > > > > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > > > > What crap > Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! > Kevin Martin > > Richard -- www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb |
| #7 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> beamendsltd wrote: >> >>>> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? >>> No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! >>> >> What crap >> > > Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, > which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety > if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! > But certainly not worse for you than smoking, which is a personal choice and its effects ought to be limited to you. Kevin Martin -- To Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form |
| #8 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
Kevin Martin said the following on 26/07/2007 14:25:
> But certainly not worse for you than smoking, which is a personal choice > and its effects ought to be limited to you. Smoking is only a personal choice for the smoker, not those around them. -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
| #9 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> beamendsltd wrote: >> >>>> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? >>> No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! >>> >> What crap >> > > Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, > which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety > if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! > > >> Kevin Martin >> >> > > Richard > The oil in the smoke units doesn't burn, it vaporises. The vaporised oil cools and condenses as it leaves the unit, and turns into minute droplets, which is what you see. Just like "steam", which is actually water (steam is invisible.) Those minute droplets of oil sick very well to cool surfaces such as rails, which is one reason I won't use smoke units. The other is, the "smoke" doesn't look right. -- Wolf 'Just because it's true doesn't mean it's the right answer.' |
| #10 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
beamendsltd wrote:
> > In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > beamendsltd wrote: > > > > >>> > > >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > > > > > > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > > > > > > > What crap > > > > Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, > which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety > if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! The output from model railway smoke units isn't burning, it's evaporating. |
| #11 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
I actually made the comment 'tongue in cheek' but it does appear to
have caused some reaction. I do recall some years ago visiting a model rail exhibition held in a pub function room and all the smoke alarms went off ... the landlord blamed the smoke unit from a factory chimney. Like all chemicals these days I assume the oil used in these units come with some for of Health & Safety advice. I assume its covered under :- Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) Smoke & vapour effects used in entertainment Entertainment Sheet No 3 http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/etis3.htm What have I started ? Chris |
| #12 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message news:b1d36884f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... > In message <S4CoJ2tMiDqGFAzS@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> > Jane Sullivan <spamtrap@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> In message <1185404400.399169.294780@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>, >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> writes >> >I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's >> >with smoke units can not be used ? >> > >> >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! Not necessarily. Smoke units that are used for stage shows use non-irritant smoke. Mind you, that doesn't stop some members of each audience coughing in a very affected way if it wafts their way. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
| #13 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
Dragon Heart wrote:
> I actually made the comment 'tongue in cheek' but it does appear to > have caused some reaction. > True, but its fun to bait the smokers who will say anything to justify their perceived right to smoke wherever they like. An alternative source of smoke of any type is an obvious target for them. > I do recall some years ago visiting a model rail exhibition held in a > pub function room and all the smoke alarms went off ... the landlord > blamed the smoke unit from a factory chimney. > But was cigarette etc smoking allowed in the function room at the time? Quite possibly if it was a pub, they are known for being smoky venues. > Like all chemicals these days I assume the oil used in these units > come with some for of Health & Safety advice. > > I assume its covered under :- > > Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) > > Smoke & vapour effects used in entertainment > > Entertainment Sheet No 3 > > http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/etis3.htm Quite likely > > What have I started ? > Another OT thread, that's all ;-) Kevin Martin -- To Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form |
| #14 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
Dragon Heart said the following on 28/07/2007 00:26:
> I do recall some years ago visiting a model rail exhibition held in a > pub function room and all the smoke alarms went off ... One thing I've always idly wondered when I see smoke effects at model railway exhibitions is if the sprinkler system is tied into the smoke alarms. I wonder how many people would mind their layouts getting drenched so someone can have some smoke :-) -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
| #15 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <46aae8df$0$15142$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Dragon Heart wrote: > > I actually made the comment 'tongue in cheek' but it does appear to > > have caused some reaction. > > > True, but its fun to bait the smokers who will say anything to justify > their perceived right to smoke wherever they like. An alternative source > of smoke of any type is an obvious target for them. Ah, right, you're an anti. No point in trying reason then! > > > I do recall some years ago visiting a model rail exhibition held in a > > pub function room and all the smoke alarms went off ... the landlord > > blamed the smoke unit from a factory chimney. > > > But was cigarette etc smoking allowed in the function room at the time? > Quite possibly if it was a pub, they are known for being smoky venues. Cig smoke *doesn't* set smoke alarms off, unless they are of the type designed to do so. But let's not worry about facts eh? > <snip h&s link> > > Kevin Martin > > Richard -- www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb |
| #16 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <5h05u2F3hr6mtU1@mid.individual.net>
"Brian Watson" <WACCI_inf@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message > news:b1d36884f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... > > In message <S4CoJ2tMiDqGFAzS@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> > > Jane Sullivan <spamtrap@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> In message <1185404400.399169.294780@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>, > >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> writes > >> >I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's > >> >with smoke units can not be used ? > >> > > >> > >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > > > > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > > Not necessarily. > > Smoke units that are used for stage shows use non-irritant smoke. Dry Ice - we used use one with the band. Definaltely not non-irritating, but can be reather alarming when your electric guitar strings start getting damp..... (ours was a "chuck it in and see what happens" model, quite entertaining when we got it wrong). > > Mind you, that doesn't stop some members of each audience coughing in a very > affected way if it wafts their way. I used to keep a packet of Throaties in my pocket - an instant cure when offered to the "sufferer" over the PA. I still keep some in the motor for very unhealthy Ramblers who come up the the Peaks with their nasty coughs ;-) > Richard -- www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb |
| #17 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
beamendsltd said the following on 28/07/2007 11:29:
> Cig smoke *doesn't* set smoke alarms off, unless they are of the > type designed to do so. But let's not worry about facts eh? What on earth is so special about cigarette smoke that doesn't set off alarms? Even over-doing the toast will set alarms off :-) -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
| #18 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <46aae8df$0$15142$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> Dragon Heart wrote: >>> I actually made the comment 'tongue in cheek' but it does appear to >>> have caused some reaction. >>> >> True, but its fun to bait the smokers who will say anything to justify >> their perceived right to smoke wherever they like. An alternative source >> of smoke of any type is an obvious target for them. > > Ah, right, you're an anti. No point in trying reason then! Not at all, I careless whether you smoke or not, just don't inflict it on me. Do you seriously have a problem with that? Kevin Martin -- To Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form |
| #19 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
On 28 Jul, 11:38, beamendsltd <beamends...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> In message <5h05u2F3hr6m...@mid.individual.net> > "Brian Watson" <WACCI_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "beamendsltd" <beamends...@btconnect.com> wrote in message > >news:b1d36884f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... > > > In message <S4CoJ2tMiDqGF...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> > > > Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> In message <1185404400.399169.294...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>, > > >> Dragon Heart <chris_br...@tesco.net> writes > > >> >I assume with the smoking ban all those exhibition layouts / loco's > > >> >with smoke units can not be used ? > > > >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > > > > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > > > Not necessarily. > > > Smoke units that are used for stage shows use non-irritant smoke. > > Dry Ice - we used use one with the band. Definaltely not non-irritating, > but can be reather alarming when your electric guitar strings start > getting damp..... (ours was a "chuck it in and see what happens" model, > quite entertaining when we got it wrong). > > Mind you, that doesn't stop some members of each audience coughing in a very > > affected way if it wafts their way. > > I used to keep a packet of Throaties in my pocket - an instant cure > when offered to the "sufferer" over the PA. I still keep some in the > motor for very unhealthy Ramblers who come up the the Peaks with their > nasty coughs ;-) They're just not used to what we call 'fresh air' Richard ! Chris |
| #20 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
" Cig smoke *doesn't* set smoke alarms off, unless they are of the
type designed to do so. But let's not worry about facts eh? ! Any airborne particle could set off a smoke alarm ! There are a couple of main types of smoke detectors ...... ionisation detectors & photoelectric detectors. A smoke alarm uses one or both methods plus sometimes a heat detector. Ionisation detectors work at the atomic level ( sounds like a script from the Open University ) and have an ionisation chamber, consisting of 2 separated plates and a source of ionising radiation. The source of radiation produces alpha particles. The battery or mains power if a plug in type applies a voltage to the plates, charging one plate positive and the other plate negative. Alpha particles constantly released by the source knock electrons off of the atoms in the air, ionising the oxygen & nitrogen atoms in the chamber. The positively- charged oxygen & nitrogen atoms are attracted to the negative plate and the electrons are attracted to the positive plate, generating a very small but continuous electric current. When smoke enters the ionisation chamber, the smoke particles attach to the ions and neutralise them, so they do not reach the plate. The drop in current between the plates triggers the alarm. In the most common type of photoelectric unit light is scattered by smoke particles onto a photocell, setting off an alarm. The latest generation of especially commercial alarms are 'tuneable' to the environment they will work in. When I used to work for the local council we had a report of birds nesting in a council tenants roof space. I called many times until one day the door was answered and I explained the reason for my visit. He turned a bright shade of pink and confessed the 'birds' was actually his smoke alarm telling him it's battery was running down. I asked him if he had sorted it " Yes ! I removed the battery " ... some folks :-( Chris |
| #21 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message news:8227384f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... > In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> beamendsltd wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? >> > >> > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! >> > >> >> What crap >> > > Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, > which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety > if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! The thought that the smoke from a tiny engine is going to cause any serious harm is CRAP. Certainly compared with the amount of second hand smoke breathed in by people close to smokers. How many model engines do you come close to in a year? |
| #22 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message news:46a8ab09$0$1605$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net... > Kevin Martin said the following on 26/07/2007 14:25: > >> But certainly not worse for you than smoking, which is a personal choice >> and its effects ought to be limited to you. > > Smoking is only a personal choice for the smoker, not those around them. I have a strong feeling that is what he was referring to when he said 'which is a personal choice and its effects ought to be limited to you'. |
| #23 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <1l%qi.5301$S91.2898@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>
"Alan Holmes" <alan_holmes@nowhere.com> wrote: > > "beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message > news:8227384f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... > > In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > > Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > >> beamendsltd wrote: > >> > >> >>> > >> >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > >> > > >> > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > >> > > >> > >> What crap > >> > > > > Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, > > which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety > > if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! > > The thought that the smoke from a tiny engine is going to cause any serious > harm is CRAP. > > Certainly compared with the amount of second hand smoke breathed in by > people close to smokers. > > How many model engines do you come close to in a year? None, but the potential is there - and that's the whole rationale of the "ban it" brigade! > > Richard -- www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb |
| #24 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
> > With any luck they'll ban the use of mobile phones in public places > next. Some schools have banned them in class, for obvious reasons. -- Martin S. |
| #25 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote in message news:PG2ri.106146$wG2.25171@newsfe17.lga... > "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: > > > > With any luck they'll ban the use of mobile phones in public places > > next. > > Some schools have banned them in class, for obvious reasons. > > -- > Martin S. Apart from "hands-free" models they are also banned for use while driving; or so I am led to believe. The number of irresponsible, it-can't-happen-to-me, drivers I see every day using hand-held mobiles makes me wonder if anybody does anything about enforcing this Law. David Costigan |
| #26 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote in message news:PG2ri.106146$wG2.25171@newsfe17.lga... > "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >> >> With any luck they'll ban the use of mobile phones in public places >> next. > > Some schools have banned them in class, for obvious reasons. > Yeah but they allow the kids to smoke instead, so thats fair. |
| #27 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
"David Costigan" <dcostigan@ic24.net> wrote:
> "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... >> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >> > >> > With any luck they'll ban the use of mobile phones in public places >> > next. >> >> Some schools have banned them in class, for obvious reasons. > > Apart from "hands-free" models they are also banned for use while > driving; or so I am led to believe. The number of irresponsible, > it-can't-happen-to-me, drivers I see every day using hand-held mobiles > makes me wonder if anybody does anything about enforcing this Law. No such laws yet in most of US and Canada, but people have been observed texting, and e-mailing with their Blackberries while driving. Scary. -- Martin S. |
| #28 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:02:05 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan_holmes@nowhere.com> wrote: > >"beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message >news:8227384f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... >> In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> >> Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >>> beamendsltd wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? >>> > >>> > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! >>> > >>> >>> What crap >>> >> >> Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, >> which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety >> if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! > >The thought that the smoke from a tiny engine is going to cause any serious >harm is CRAP. > Depends ,I was subject to a clip around the ear from Mother which seemed pretty serious at the time. As the nearest stockist for the perfumed stuff Tri-ang used to supply was a two day camel ride away in a rarely visited town I found substitutes. Tractor vapourising oil threw out a good amount of smoke as did Diesel. Using tractor gearbox oil was a bit too much for her. Non of my coach roofs or the Tunnel mouth needed weathering powders ,not that such things were about or of concern to me then. Trouble was the wallpaper got weathered as well. G.Harman |
| #29 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
On 29 Jul, 17:05, "David Costigan" <dcosti...@ic24.net> wrote:
> Apart from "hands-free" models they are also banned for use while driving; > or so I am led to believe. The number of irresponsible, > it-can't-happen-to-me, drivers I see every day using hand-held mobiles makes > me wonder if anybody does anything about enforcing this Law. Unfortunately speed cameras don't pick this up ! Chris B |
| #30 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
>From the dim and distant TV past I recall you can also create smoke by
heating up aspirin tablets ? Chris B |
| #31 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:05:13 +0100, "David Costigan"
<dcostigan@ic24.net> wrote: > >"MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote in message >news:PG2ri.106146$wG2.25171@newsfe17.lga... >> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >> > >> > With any luck they'll ban the use of mobile phones in public places >> > next. >> >> Some schools have banned them in class, for obvious reasons. >> >> -- >> Martin S. > >Apart from "hands-free" models they are also banned for use while driving; >or so I am led to believe. The number of irresponsible, >it-can't-happen-to-me, drivers I see every day using hand-held mobiles makes >me wonder if anybody does anything about enforcing this Law. > >David Costigan So much for the GOV enforcing the law on using mobiles while driving. Didn't save two motorcyclists, when a white van man veered across a country road into the path of two un coming motorcyclists. result; one killed outright, the other seriously injured. Hope the WVM get's the book thrown at him, 5 years min. K9-70 |
| #32 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
On 29 Jul, 21:14, Wilson Adams <Wilson.ada...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> So much for the GOV enforcing the law on using mobiles while driving. > Didn't save two motorcyclists, when a white van man veered across a > country road into the path of two un coming motorcyclists. > result; one killed outright, the other seriously injured. > > Hope the WVM get's the book thrown at him, 5 years min. As an ex biker I would say :- Lifetime ban, Crush his car & phone, Put him in the stocks at the next UK Superbike race, Remove the hand he was holding the mobile with, Then burn him at the stake. My friend got killed buy a idiot who was lighting his cigar when the accident occurred. Chris |
| #33 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote:
> On 29 Jul, 21:14, Wilson Adams <Wilson.ada...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> So much for the GOV enforcing the law on using mobiles while driving. >> Didn't save two motorcyclists, when a white van man veered across a >> country road into the path of two un coming motorcyclists. >> result; one killed outright, the other seriously injured. >> >> Hope the WVM get's the book thrown at him, 5 years min. > > As an ex biker I would say :- > > Lifetime ban, > > Crush his car & phone, > > Put him in the stocks at the next UK Superbike race, > > Remove the hand he was holding the mobile with, > > Then burn him at the stake. > > My friend got killed buy a idiot who was lighting his cigar when the > accident occurred. Police here don't use the word "accident", which implies that it was unavoidable. They always say "collision". -- Martin S. |
| #34 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
On Jul 29, 8:29 pm, Dragon Heart <chris_br...@tesco.net> wrote:
> On 29 Jul, 17:05, "David Costigan" <dcosti...@ic24.net> wrote: > > > Apart from "hands-free" models they are also banned for use while driving; > > or so I am led to believe. The number of irresponsible, > > it-can't-happen-to-me, drivers I see every day using hand-held mobiles makes > > me wonder if anybody does anything about enforcing this Law. > > Unfortunately speed cameras don't pick this up ! The types that face the oncoming traffic can. MBQ |
| #35 | |
|
|
Re: Smoking ban
In message <falpa3hp2p3oe7nchg274bjm19i4psc9j3@4ax.com>
oldship@interalpha.couk wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:02:05 GMT, "Alan Holmes" > <alan_holmes@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > >"beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message > >news:8227384f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com... > >> In message <46a87a22$0$1462$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> > >> Kevin Martin <kevinrailway@notreqdoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> > >>> beamendsltd wrote: > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> Why? DO those smoke units burn tobacco or other nicotine products? > >>> > > >>> > No, but the emissions are probaly far more harmful! > >>> > > >>> > >>> What crap > >>> > >> > >> Indeed - burning oil gives off all sorts of interesting chemicals, > >> which would almost certainly gain the attention of Health & Safety > >> if used in a work environment - so, as you say, crap! > > > >The thought that the smoke from a tiny engine is going to cause any serious > >harm is CRAP. > > > > Depends ,I was subject to a clip around the ear from Mother which > seemed pretty serious at the time. > As the nearest stockist for the perfumed stuff Tri-ang used to supply > was a two day camel ride away in a rarely visited town I found > substitutes. Tractor vapourising oil threw out a good amount of smoke > as did Diesel. Using tractor gearbox oil was a bit too much for her. > Non of my coach roofs or the Tunnel mouth needed weathering powders > ,not that such things were about or of concern to me then. Trouble was > the wallpaper got weathered as well. > I tried 3-in-1 in my old Triang Midland 3F (the tubes of smoke oil were hideously expensive). It worked quite well.... for a bit, and then the element failed. > G.Harman Richard -- www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb |
