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

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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