E-bike fire:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317

No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one seemed to
go off like a fucking incendiary.

--
If socialism helps the poor, why are the poor in socialist countries so much poorer than the poor in capitalist countries?

Mark

On 08/04/2024 10:53, Tim Streater wrote:
> E-bike fire:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>
> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one seemed to
> go off like a fucking incendiary.
>
Thy usually do. If they are going to go off at all.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> E-bike fire:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>
> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one
> seemed to go off like a fucking incendiary.

It's depressing that they can be imported from China with basically no
battery management - no thermal management, no overtemperature shutoff.
They may or may not disconnect the load if an anomaly is detected.

Worse, they just use barrel jacks for charging and dumb CC/CV chargers - if
you try to charge a 24v pack with a 48v charger the plug will fit and it'll
apply power, but may get sparkly once the battery goes over voltage (if the
vendor didn't bother fitting a BMS or the BMS is dumb).

Plus as a consumer you basically just have Aliexpress grade batteries to
choose from: there is no middle-market, good-but-safe brand you can buy.
The proprietary e-bikes have proprietary batteries for sky high prices, but
the rest there's no way for the consumer to know if they got a safe one or
not.

Theo

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:09:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 08/04/2024 10:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>> E-bike fire:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>>
>> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one seemed to
>> go off like a fucking incendiary.
>>
>Thy usually do. If they are going to go off at all.

No wonder that airport carpark never stood a chance. And these little
things are just sparklers compared to the energy of an EV car battery!

On 08/04/2024 16:48, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:09:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2024 10:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> E-bike fire:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>>>
>>> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one seemed to
>>> go off like a fucking incendiary.
>>>
>> Thy usually do. If they are going to go off at all.
>
> No wonder that airport carpark never stood a chance.

Yes, diesel burns very well.

On 4/8/2024 7:08 AM, Theo wrote:
> Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> E-bike fire:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>>
>> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one
>> seemed to go off like a fucking incendiary.
>
> It's depressing that they can be imported from China with basically no
> battery management - no thermal management, no overtemperature shutoff.
> They may or may not disconnect the load if an anomaly is detected.
>
> Worse, they just use barrel jacks for charging and dumb CC/CV chargers - if
> you try to charge a 24v pack with a 48v charger the plug will fit and it'll
> apply power, but may get sparkly once the battery goes over voltage (if the
> vendor didn't bother fitting a BMS or the BMS is dumb).
>
> Plus as a consumer you basically just have Aliexpress grade batteries to
> choose from: there is no middle-market, good-but-safe brand you can buy.
> The proprietary e-bikes have proprietary batteries for sky high prices, but
> the rest there's no way for the consumer to know if they got a safe one or
> not.
>
> Theo
>

https://www.consumerreports.org/health/electric-bikes/electric-bike-fires-and-lithium-ion-batteries-a4632489902/

"In 2015, DiCostanzo learned his lesson the hard way. Pedego received
six reports of the batteries catching fire; no injuries were reported.
The company recalled 5,000 battery packs. Pedego found, he says, that
its battery-pack supplier was not using a clean room to manufacture.
A delicate membrane separates the anode and cathode on each battery,
and DiCostanzo learned that “if you get just a speck of dust on that
membrane during manufacturing, two or three years down the road, it can
begin to corrode and cause that battery to catch fire,” he says, and
“when one cell goes off, it starts igniting all the cells next to it,
and it creates a fire that you can’t put out.”

"Now, he buys solely from Samsung and Panasonic, and has had no issues since."

And for this, you're "assuming it's not a fake cert". You can't really
trust the labeling on imported stuff.

https://article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/w_610,f_auto,q_auto/v1670276607/prod/content/dam/CRO-Images-2022/Special%20Projects/12December/CR-SP-Inline-2-ebike-fires-1222

If your supplier is a domestic supplier, then they're likely to suffer
from a legal case, if they cut too many corners.

Paul

On 08/04/2024 19:52, Fredxx wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 16:48, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:09:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/04/2024 10:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> E-bike fire:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>>>>
>>>> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this one
>>>> seemed to
>>>> go off like a fucking incendiary.
>>>>
>>> Thy usually do. If they are going to go off at all.
>>
>> No wonder that airport carpark never stood a chance.
>
> Yes, diesel burns very well.
>

It's really, really weird how for some posters a diesel fire simply has
to be EV, because that suits their agenda. It's the same mentality as
convinced some utter morons to storm Capitol Hill.

On 09/04/2024 12:48, GB wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 19:52, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 08/04/2024 16:48, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:09:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/04/2024 10:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> E-bike fire:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this
>>>>> one seemed to
>>>>> go off like a fucking incendiary.
>>>>>
>>>> Thy usually do. If they are going to go off at all.
>>>
>>> No wonder that airport carpark never stood a chance.
>>
>> Yes, diesel burns very well.
>>
>
> It's really, really weird how for some posters a diesel fire simply has
> to be EV, because that suits their agenda. It's the same mentality as
> convinced some utter morons to storm Capitol Hill.

Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
'Closed Mind'?

The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
in this case it wasn't.

Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
batteries and not kerosene.

On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
> On 09/04/2024 12:48, GB wrote:
>> On 08/04/2024 19:52, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2024 16:48, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:09:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/04/2024 10:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> E-bike fire:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-68744317
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No wonder e-bike fires can take a house out. The battery in this
>>>>>> one seemed to
>>>>>> go off like a fucking incendiary.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thy usually do. If they are going to go off at all.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder that airport carpark never stood a chance.
>>>
>>> Yes, diesel burns very well.
>>>
>>
>> It's really, really weird how for some posters a diesel fire simply
>> has to be EV, because that suits their agenda. It's the same mentality
>> as convinced some utter morons to storm Capitol Hill.
>
> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
> 'Closed Mind'?
>
> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
> in this case it wasn't.
>
> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
> batteries and not kerosene.

Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:

>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>
>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
>> in this case it wasn't.
>>
>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
>> batteries and not kerosene.
>
> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)

I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack you heard at
each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge rather than
just the beams snapping.

Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down due to
weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue. And that
as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth at a time
(around 2500 tons IIRC).

--
"Hard" and "Soft" Brexit are code words for Leaving or Staying in the EU, rather than for the terms of our departure.

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>
>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>
>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>
>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>
> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack you heard at
> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge rather than
> just the beams snapping.
>
> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down due to
> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue. And that
> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth at a time
> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>

While the collapse of the 2 WTC buildings is fairly well documented, the
demise of Building 7 is less certain.
https://www.ft.com/content/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac

On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>
>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>
>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>
>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>
> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack you heard at
> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge rather than
> just the beams snapping.
>
> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down due to
> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue. And that
> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth at a time
> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>
AS an engineer, I found the twin towers official explanation fully in
accord with what structural engineering I studied and learnt, and I also
find the lithium battery explanation unfortunately fully in accordance
with my experience of those batteries in the RC world.
There is a huge amount of money being made out of 'net zero' as well as
climate change. and when huge amounts of money are in play, I disregard
all official narratives.

They said thalidomide was safe, too.

And seroxat.

And kids were not being groomed by Pakistani gangs.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 10/04/2024 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell"
>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
>>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>>
>>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
>>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
>>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>>
>> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack you
>> heard at
>> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge
>> rather than
>> just the beams snapping.
>>
>> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down
>> due to
>> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue.
>> And that
>> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth
>> at a time
>> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>>
> AS an engineer, I found the twin towers official  explanation fully in
> accord with what structural engineering I studied and learnt, and I also
> find the lithium battery explanation unfortunately fully in accordance
> with my experience of those batteries in the RC world.
> There is a huge amount of money being made out of 'net zero' as well as
> climate change. and when huge amounts of money are in play, I disregard
> all official narratives.

There is an even greater investment and money in fossil fuels. Some get
taken in by that, in much the same way some said smoking was healthy for
you.

> They said thalidomide was safe, too.

Still used in some treatments.

> And seroxat.

Yes, it has the same side-effects as other antidepressants.

> And kids were not being groomed by Pakistani gangs.

Feel free to cite the source of that one.

On 09/04/2024 23:15, Fredxx wrote:
> On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell"
>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
>>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>>
>>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV. But
>>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of lithium
>>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>>
>> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack you
>> heard at
>> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge
>> rather than
>> just the beams snapping.
>>
>> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down
>> due to
>> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue.
>> And that
>> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth
>> at a time
>> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>>
>
> While the collapse of the 2 WTC buildings is fairly well documented, the
> demise of Building 7 is less certain.
>   https://www.ft.com/content/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac

That is behind a paywall. However, several years ago, I read a
structural report of the failure of Building 7. IIRC, it concluded that
changes made to the design during construction resulted in an incomplete
steel framework and some columns carrying more than their design loads,
even before the events of 9/11.

--
Colin Bignell

Colin Bignell wrote:

> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> the demise of Building 7 is less certain.
>> https://www.ft.com/content/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac
>
> That is behind a paywall.

But they care more about google indexing their content more than they
care about you paying for it ... so if you google for the UUID of the
article, then follow the link to the FT article from google, you bypass
the paywall

<https://google.com/search?q=7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac>

On 10/04/2024 11:38, Fredxx wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell"
>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I think
>>>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>>>
>>>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an EV.
>>>>> But
>>>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of
>>>>> lithium
>>>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>>>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>>>
>>> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack you
>>> heard at
>>> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge
>>> rather than
>>> just the beams snapping.
>>>
>>> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down
>>> due to
>>> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue.
>>> And that
>>> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth
>>> at a time
>>> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>>>
>> AS an engineer, I found the twin towers official  explanation fully in
>> accord with what structural engineering I studied and learnt, and I
>> also find the lithium battery explanation unfortunately fully in
>> accordance with my experience of those batteries in the RC world.
>> There is a huge amount of money being made out of 'net zero' as well
>> as climate change. and when huge amounts of money are in play, I
>> disregard all official narratives.
>
> There is an even greater investment and money in fossil fuels. Some get
> taken in by that, in much the same way some said smoking was healthy for
> you.
>
>> They said thalidomide was safe, too.
>
> Still used in some treatments.

And some idiots tried to have its use banned totally - even when it was
found to be a useful medication for some conditions in men.

On 10/04/2024 23:04, SteveW wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 11:38, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 10/04/2024 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell"
>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>>>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an
>>>>>> EV. But
>>>>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of
>>>>>> lithium
>>>>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>>>>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>>>>
>>>> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack
>>>> you heard at
>>>> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge
>>>> rather than
>>>> just the beams snapping.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down
>>>> due to
>>>> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue.
>>>> And that
>>>> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's worth
>>>> at a time
>>>> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>>>>
>>> AS an engineer, I found the twin towers official  explanation fully
>>> in accord with what structural engineering I studied and learnt, and
>>> I also find the lithium battery explanation unfortunately fully in
>>> accordance with my experience of those batteries in the RC world.
>>> There is a huge amount of money being made out of 'net zero' as well
>>> as climate change. and when huge amounts of money are in play, I
>>> disregard all official narratives.
>>
>> There is an even greater investment and money in fossil fuels. Some
>> get taken in by that, in much the same way some said smoking was
>> healthy for you.
>>
>>> They said thalidomide was safe, too.
>>
>> Still used in some treatments.
>
> And some idiots tried to have its use banned totally - even when it was
> found to be a useful medication for some conditions in men.

And some in women too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Cancer_treatment

On 10/04/2024 23:26, Fredxx wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 23:04, SteveW wrote:
>> On 10/04/2024 11:38, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2024 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell"
>>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>>>>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an
>>>>>>> EV. But
>>>>>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of
>>>>>>> lithium
>>>>>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>>>>>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack
>>>>> you heard at
>>>>> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge
>>>>> rather than
>>>>> just the beams snapping.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started down
>>>>> due to
>>>>> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to continue.
>>>>> And that
>>>>> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's
>>>>> worth at a time
>>>>> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>>>>>
>>>> AS an engineer, I found the twin towers official  explanation fully
>>>> in accord with what structural engineering I studied and learnt, and
>>>> I also find the lithium battery explanation unfortunately fully in
>>>> accordance with my experience of those batteries in the RC world.
>>>> There is a huge amount of money being made out of 'net zero' as well
>>>> as climate change. and when huge amounts of money are in play, I
>>>> disregard all official narratives.
>>>
>>> There is an even greater investment and money in fossil fuels. Some
>>> get taken in by that, in much the same way some said smoking was
>>> healthy for you.
>>>
>>>> They said thalidomide was safe, too.
>>>
>>> Still used in some treatments.
>>
>> And some idiots tried to have its use banned totally - even when it
>> was found to be a useful medication for some conditions in men.
>
> And some in women too.
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Cancer_treatment

Yes, but there is at least an argument for not generally using it in
women, while there is no such argument for non-use in men.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:57:16 +0100
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 10/04/2024 23:26, Fredxx wrote:
> > On 10/04/2024 23:04, SteveW wrote:
> >> On 10/04/2024 11:38, Fredxx wrote:
> >>> On 10/04/2024 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >
>
> >>>
> >>>> They said thalidomide was safe, too.
> >>>
> >>> Still used in some treatments.
> >>
> >> And some idiots tried to have its use banned totally - even when
> >> it was found to be a useful medication for some conditions in men.
> >>
> >
> > And some in women too.
> >   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Cancer_treatment
>
> Yes, but there is at least an argument for not generally using it in
> women, while there is no such argument for non-use in men.
>

Don't forget that men can get pregnant, and the NHS believes it...

--
Joe

On 11-Apr-24 16:57, SteveW wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 23:26, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 10/04/2024 23:04, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2024 11:38, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 10/04/2024 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 09/04/2024 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 9 Apr 2024 at 13:45:44 BST, "Colin Bignell"
>>>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/04/2024 13:14, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some say "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story". I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> we need to replace 'Good Story' with personal agenda, or possibly
>>>>>>>> 'Closed Mind'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The irony is I would have accepted if the fire was caused by an
>>>>>>>> EV. But
>>>>>>>> in this case it wasn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Next some here will be claiming the Twin Towers fell because of
>>>>>>>> lithium
>>>>>>>> batteries and not kerosene.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps that was what comprised the demolition charges that were
>>>>>>> supposed to have been placed by some of the steel support beams :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I met a yank professor some years ago who insisted that the crack
>>>>>> you heard at
>>>>>> each floor level as the towers came down was a demolition charge
>>>>>> rather than
>>>>>> just the beams snapping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how they can't grasp that once the top structure started
>>>>>> down due to
>>>>>> weakened steel at 1000C, momentum alone would allow it to
>>>>>> continue. And that
>>>>>> as it fell, the falling stuff increased in weight by a floor's
>>>>>> worth at a time
>>>>>> (around 2500 tons IIRC).
>>>>>>
>>>>> AS an engineer, I found the twin towers official  explanation fully
>>>>> in accord with what structural engineering I studied and learnt,
>>>>> and I also find the lithium battery explanation unfortunately fully
>>>>> in accordance with my experience of those batteries in the RC world.
>>>>> There is a huge amount of money being made out of 'net zero' as
>>>>> well as climate change. and when huge amounts of money are in play,
>>>>> I disregard all official narratives.
>>>>
>>>> There is an even greater investment and money in fossil fuels. Some
>>>> get taken in by that, in much the same way some said smoking was
>>>> healthy for you.
>>>>
>>>>> They said thalidomide was safe, too.
>>>>
>>>> Still used in some treatments.
>>>
>>> And some idiots tried to have its use banned totally - even when it
>>> was found to be a useful medication for some conditions in men.
>>
>> And some in women too.
>>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Cancer_treatment
>
> Yes, but there is at least an argument for not generally using it in
> women, while there is no such argument for non-use in men.
>
Many years ago, my wife had the pleasure of explaining to indignant
mothers why their (e.g.) 15 year old daughter's x-ray had to be
scheduled during her period.

--
Sam Plusnet