Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Also, has any research been

> done into whether these creams can be damaging to

> people with lung/breathing difficulties?

>


Literally anything can be considered dangerous, if used outside its recommended or common sense guidelines. That's part of the understanding of a) the principles of basic toxicology, and b) the difference between hazard and risk.


Creams by their nature don't readily aerosolise.


Aerosols by their nature don't readily reach the respirable fraction of the lungs.


Therefore the use of creams is not associated with increased respiratory exposure and risk by general use.


Yes, there is a shed load of rearch on aerosolised and respiratory irritants and toxins. Damage to the lungs by common materials is only associated with repeated high dose exposures, not incidental exposure as described by the bus scenario.


So, application of creams within their recommended usage would not constitute an increased respiratory risk. Even most aerosols in small amounts would not pose an increased risk of lung damage, though aerosol should not be used in confined spaces because it is a lung irritant.


And I would never recommend that anyone skip an essential medication such as asthma inhaler, if they needed one on a bus.

I'll keep using my 72% ethyl alcohol anti-bac hand gel on the bus thanks. You never know where other people's fingers have been just before they push that bell.


If a fellow passenger took a lighter to my hand right away after appying the gel, I wonder if the flames would burn me, or just be a harmless cool blue effect like when you set light to excess deodorant on your skin? Any clever people here know the answer? I don't plan on experimenting? :)

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cringe whenever I see people applying eye liner

> on a moving bus.


I am a combination of cringing and then inward applause that they can get a straight line on a moving bus when I can't manage one in the safety of my own home...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...