DJKillaQueen

Thank you for that post bint_cj. It validates the research that is ongoing. And there are two aspects to that research. One is to try and find other ways to heal the psychological trauma (so the switch from trauma to fantasy isn't made). And the other aspect is to find ways to break the cycle. Stopping abuse from happening in the first place is the best way to not produce more damaged adults to continue the cycle. But I agree that for that to happen, there has to be a more open approach to the issues and a removal of stigma in order to create an environment where people can seek help before they abuse. And there also needs to be more funding put into psychiatric and mental health services. Those services can't cope with demand as it is and very few people with mental health issues receive anything like the length of treatment they need.

But many of the porest live in social housing, where insulation (beyond windows) can not be improved. And in many southwark flats (because the rooms are so small), mould and mildew is a real problem if those windows aren't allowing ventilation and the heating is turned off. I know of many families who just simply can not afford to heat their homes. 10% IS a good figure because if you take home minimum wage, what you are left with after rent and council tax isn't very much (comparable to JSA in fact). An average single person (in a one bedroomed flat) spends ?13 a week on electric. Gas just doesn't become an affordable option. Hot water once a day will cost ?6 across the week. Heating for one hour a day will take it up to ?18. A person with just ?70 a week income after tax and rent absolutely will find themself unable to afford this. But that ?28 before tax and other bills is equivalent to around 10% of their income (on a minimum wage). So for those people it is a good indicator.

I think her contribution is only that no women will ever be elected prime minister again.

I actually think Louisa makes a good point though about the move from clear left and right politics to a three party system all chasing the centre ground. Like many people, I liked thatcher to begin with, and ended up hating her. I saw first hand the consequences of some of her policies. She destroyed my father's job (by selling off the public sector service he worked for) and in turn my fathers sanity, when made redundant at 50, he found he was unemployable. And there were millions like my father. Their livelihoods destroyed, and any hope of finding another job gone. These people did not hate Thatcher because of some victim mentality. They hated her because she didn't care about the unemployed (any more than this government do). She strung whole communities out to dry and did nothing to replace the lost industries, jobs, commerce in those areas. I totally agree though Quids, regarding Benn and Scargill. I'd also throw Derek Hatton into the mix (leader of the Militant Labour council in Liverpool at the time).

Funny that Keane because I drive along that stretch all the time, day and night and have never seen any vehicle travelling at well over 40+ speeds. Of course, if you have some speed gun data to support that claim let's see it.

Your link Louisa is not a scientific article...and it's published by the health food emporium of all things which is hardly an independent scientific body. Here's a counter study from an independent body that argues the opposite.... http://www.dweckdata.com/Research_files/SLS_compendium.pdf (And don't worry about over-stepping marks Louisa - it's just debate and it's all good) I have more time for TE44's reference point, but as the article says... Industry argues that years of phthalate use without visible harm prove product safety. Critics counter that animal studies establish plausible risk but that the relevant human epidemiological studies focused specifically on the impacts of fetal exposure simply haven't been done. Are the results in animal testing strong enough to suggest a need for human epidemiological studies? I am not conviced they are but am prepared to have an open mind on that one until more research is done.

The report reinforces it's view as follows..... Dose and the degree of exposure. Most of us are familiar with the basic foundation of toxicology, that ?the dose makes the poison.? The Swiss Renaissance chemist Paracelsus laid out the principle back in the 16th century: ?All substances are poisonous, there is none which is not a poison; the right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.? Yet one of the key approaches of the anti-chemical campaigners?with which the media too often goes along?is to completely disregard the amount of exposure or dose when reporting on the risks of chemicals. The cosmetic preservative parabens, for example, is said by the Campaign and other environmental groups to be linked to breast cancer and hormone dysfunction. Yet scientists have refuted the claims, arguing that concentrations of parabens in personal care products?ranging from 0.01 percent to 0.3 percent are too small to have an adverse effect, and are at levels in our bodies much lower than naturally produced estrogens. THAT's why I believe the science over bad science and wild claims. A chemical naturally produced by the body in higher quantities can not possibly be harmful if present in lower quantities in cosmetics. That's just common sense. You might want to give the report a read TE44 and find some credible conflicting science if you want to to disagree with it.

No it's not a reality...look at the report I posted. It's full of recognised medical bodies disproving those kinds of claims. Just on phthatates alone the report says..... The Campaign?s most recent report, Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance , claims that perfume manufacturers use ?secret? ingredients that are not safe for use in their fragrances. Specifically, the report argues that the cosmetic industry is using a chemical ?cocktail? of phthalates and other compounds that, when inhaled or absorbed through the skin, can stunt genital development and is linked to sperm and hormonal damage. Furthermore, these groups argue most of the ?complex mix of clandestine compounds? has never been tested by the FDA, the International Fragrance Association, or ?any other publicly accountable institution.? The charges that phthalates are a health risk have been completely and directly refuted by experts. Every regulatory agency and science panel that has ever studied the data has concluded there is no evidence that phthalates are an endocrine disrupter or safety risk. This includes the National Toxicology Program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the European Union?s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, Cosmetic Ingredient Review, and Research Institute for Fragrance Materials. There is no evidence...and data and evidence is what counts...that supports your 'reality'. If there were evidence I would support your view. And what's truly unforgiveable is that those making the claims can provide no damning evidence either, which is just bad science, and designed to fool the public into thinking there's a problem when there isn't.

You need to address your choice of adjectives Vicanna....being deliberately offensive is not clever.

Really insightful addition to the debate Vicanna...no, really...calling anyone retarded is also really insightful.....no really it is............glass houses...stones.

Spot on H.....and this is the link I posted earlier again, which supports that view. http://www.the-beheld.com/2011/06/applying-makeup-in-public-preserving.html I think this is a theory that merits some discussion, if we are to understand what really might be behind the offence that some women (and men) feel, rather than exaggerated claims of toxic public health risk.

TE44, Louisa believes that there are toxins in cosmetics that are so strong that they should be classed as a public health issue. It is the same misinformed belief system as those who call for the banning of cosmetics for the same reasons. The report I posted clearly shows that the levels of chemicals used in makeup are so low that they don't even brush the radar of those concerned with formulating policy for public health issues. It demonstrates that there is no science to support Louisa's view or the view of anyone who thinks that being in proximity to a person applying makeup is or should be a public health issue. Hairspray is slightly different as it is uses an airbourne delivery system of a flammable substance at the source of delivery, and as such, use of is prohibited on most public transport systems.

For example, here's a report debunking the myths around cosmetics and the the dangers of the ingredients in them (myths perpetuated by smear campaigns and belief systems like those of Louisa, and debunked by reputable scientific and medical organisations). http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Dana%20Joel%20Gattuso%20-%20The%20True%20Story%20of%20Cosmetics.pdf The report more interestingly draws comparisons with other things where chemical use is permitted, and perfectly demonstrates how low the risk of exposure is compared to something like food for example.

Louisa Wrote: > Interesting to note for DJKQ, I have come across > numerous websites all of which have good examples > of how foods, cosmetics and certain materials can > lead to health and safety issues in a public > space. Really Louisa...because the only health and safety mandates I can find are for environments that manufacture such items (which is understandable). Can't find a single report highlighting the serious danger that the use of or wearing of makeup/ leather in a public space poses to the public... Now if you want to give credit to your argument then provide evidence. You can't just make things up and claim evidence exists when it doesn't. It's like the deaths you claim to have happened Louisa????? You have to either validate that claim with hard fact, or retract it. No-one has died because they shared a bus or train with a person wearing makeup or leather, or high heels for that matter........and you know it. That's my issue with your argument, not your view (because you are entitled to that) but the examples you use to illustrate your view. They are not based on any hard evidence. But you seem incapable of understanding that. Head...banging ....brick....wallllllllllllllll :D

I'm up at this time because I have a ton of work to get through (not that it's any of your business). So no example of hypocrasy then? And no evidence of anyone having died from proximity to leather or makeup (your claim)? Thought not.....

For anyone who's still interested though (god knows I've lost the will to live), here's a perhaps more intelligent reasoning of why some find the applying of makeup on public transport so irritating.......and why others do it..... http://www.the-beheld.com/2011/06/applying-makeup-in-public-preserving.html

I sometimes wear lipstick when I go out for the night but nothing else, never use foundation or blusher etc....so wrong on that one Mac !!! Louisa you are tiresome......Why do I need evidence to show that most people with chemical allergies aren't affected by being within three metres of someone wearing makeup? Because there isn't any to say that they ARE. Are you really that stupid....really that incapable of any kind of logical reason? Do you even know what a scientific control is for example? To be blunt you are not up to the level of intelligence needed to engage in the semantics you are trying with me....which is why you use the word 'hypocrite' so innapropriately. In fact.....why don't you elaborate on just what words I have written in this thread that point at hypocrasy..... And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how many people have died whilst in proximity to someone wearing leather or applying makeup.....

And you have utterly failed to demonstrate why the application of make up in a public place is an immoral act and/or a health and safety issue. Just because because YOU don't like it doesn't make it immoral or unsafe. Only you could argue that your inability to provide hard evidence to back your comments makes your point a strong one?????? Not very bright are you?

lol...you too have visited the Flat Earth Society Saffron? I had great fun on there for a month or so......

There ya go drusky.....it's all there. I can dig out more papers if you like. http://ctldev.boisestate.edu/programs/documents/MustanskiChiversandBailey%282002%29.pdf All kinds of things are going on during pregnancy...... http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v69/n2/full/pr9201124a.html

Dropping litter (or chicken bones) is an offence punishable by fine, so laws do exist to curb the anti-social aspects of certain behaviour but where are the personel to enforce it? It's all very well demanding to outlaw every little annoyance but we aren't very good at enforcing the laws that do already exist. Perhaps if they were enforced better you might see the more considerate society you seem to think doesn't exist. What also irks me is when people use an anti-social aspect of an action (like dropping litter) to call for an outright ban on something (eating). It's an over-reaction which has little to do with the root irritant. And if women with handbags are annoying then equally annoying are men sitting with their legs splayed. Women wear makeup...men sit with legs splayed.....it's life and neither really harm anyone.

You forgot to mention lipstick on the no.12

But even you must agree KK that aligning smoking to the use of makeup is a poor analogy?

And 50 years ago we didn't have the advanced bio/medical research techniques that we have now. Louisa you are like a dog with a rotten bone. Cosmetics are one of the most heavily tested substabces out there....they do not kill people...they do not affect a whole room of people in the way a carcinogenic gas does...WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Now you still haven't answered this question... "Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space" Tell me how many people have died because people apply makeup in a public space, or wear a leather jacket. Go on, back up your ridiculous claim with hard facts. That's how debate works Louisa....people pick holes in your comments and if you don't fill them...you lose the debate.

Good...does that mean we win finally? :D