Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety.
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box + contents
weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight. He then packed up and went.
For that 10 minute farce, he was paid £400 A DAY......
MADNESS, MADNESS.
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety.
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box +
contents weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight. He then packed up
and went.
For that 10 minute farce, he was paid £400 A DAY......
MADNESS, MADNESS.
Dave

Do you know how many places he visited?

Dave wrote:
Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety.
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box + contents
weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight. He then packed up and went.
For that 10 minute farce, he was paid £400 A DAY......
MADNESS, MADNESS.
Dave


been there & had the course :-)

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

On 4 Dec, 21:19, "Dave" wrote:
Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety..
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box + contents
weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight. *He then packed up and went.
For that 10 minute farce, he was paid £400 A DAY......
MADNESS, MADNESS.
Dave

He was a training consultant who used to work for the HSE, and would
only have been in that place of work if he'd been engaged by the
management of the business. So blame them ;-) I thought the whole
programme very superficial.

Regards
Richard

Dave wrote:
Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety.
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box + contents
weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight. He then packed up and went.
For that 10 minute farce, he was paid £400 A DAY......
MADNESS, MADNESS.
Dave



Certainly a very superficial programme....
Having worked in a similar role (BS5750 / ISO 9000 Quality Consultancy)
the man they filmed had clearly been chosen as a 'typical' example of
a consultant (retired from full-time employment, bit on the pedantic
side, easy to poke fun at after selective editing... etc)

Thing is - just as in the Quality business - the basic principle is
perfectly fine, and needs to be highlighted.
Sometimes, the way it's implemented isn't perfect - but that doesn't
mean that the principle is wrong. People do get injured (lifting things)
at work, and familiarity breeds contempt - but this particular fellow's
'delivery' left a little to be desired...

On the infrequent occasions where people have one-on-one training in my
stained glass workshop - the very first thing that we do is a 5-minute
briefing on potential hazards (of which there are quite a few).
I'd rather be thought of as pedantic than have to take people to
casualty for stitches / wash glass splinters out of their eyes / etc.

You need to treat people like adults though .... and the way some of
this programme was shown the fellow appeared to miss this a little..

As to £400 a day - (not per 10 minutes!) - if you think it's easy money
then give it a try.... g - trust me - it's not!

Adrian

"Adrian" wrote in message
...

On the infrequent occasions where people have one-on-one training in my
stained glass workshop - the very first thing that we do is a 5-minute
briefing on potential hazards (of which there are quite a few).
I'd rather be thought of as pedantic than have to take people to casualty
for stitches / wash glass splinters out of their eyes / etc.

Its easy to miss the obvious in safety..
like..

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Adrian" wrote in message
...

On the infrequent occasions where people have one-on-one training in my
stained glass workshop - the very first thing that we do is a 5-minute
briefing on potential hazards (of which there are quite a few).
I'd rather be thought of as pedantic than have to take people to casualty
for stitches / wash glass splinters out of their eyes / etc.

Its easy to miss the obvious in safety..
like..

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!




If you don't provide the training and there is a serious
incident ---£££££££££££££££££££

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety.
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box +
contents weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight.

At a place I worked, someone ended up in hospital with a back injury because
he picked up a sheet of paper carelessly.

I didn't see the programme, but the usual trick with lifting and handling
training is to get one of the trainees to pick the, invariably small and
light, box up, then casually say 'thanks, you can put it down now'. Nine
times out of ten they will pick it up following all the rules and put it
down doing everything wrong.

Colin Bignell

On Dec 5, 11:40 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!

When taking people abseiling we used to tell them that if we shouted
"ROCK" that meant they had to shrink close to the cliff face and not
look up. Of course they were wearing safety helmets.
We shouted "Rock" no matter what was falling down. Sometimes it was a
spare safety helmet.

dennis@home wrote:

Its easy to miss the obvious in safety..

I meant to watch the programme, I'll have to look for a repeat.

I noticed on The Home Show this week that one of the window
fitters appeared to be doing his stuff perched outside on the
window sill.

I remember being at a social event which happened to be attended
by the guy I knew as our company safety officer. Guess who
dragged his chair right in front of the fire exit ;-)

I will confess to finding myself more aware of safety matters
than most, mainly because of various work-related stuff over the
years.

At an event I usually at least make sure that I know where the
exits are, and the routes to them. Carrying out such a visual
check I have found:

Emergency exit chained and padlocked: Bury
Marquee with no fire exits, no exit signs, no emergency lighting:
Lincoln.
Previously failed electrical circuit leading to flat batteries in
emergency lights and exit signs: London
Inadequate exit signs and locked door on exit route: Whitby.

Even when the organisers have done their best, I have lost count
of the chairs, piles of bags, push chairs and so forth which have
been placed across the exits. Self-preservation doesn't seem to
be a strong instinct.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...

Emergency exit chained and padlocked: Bury
Marquee with no fire exits, no exit signs, no emergency lighting:


I was watching a film in a cinema, when it finished we all headed for the
emergency exits like we usually do only to find some prat had parked a car
outside the one I was trying to open.
He wont do it again as I nearly broke the door slamming it repeatedly into
his car as hard as I could.

In article ,
Chris J Dixon writes:
I meant to watch the programme, I'll have to look for a repeat.

I noticed on The Home Show this week that one of the window
fitters appeared to be doing his stuff perched outside on the
window sill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ning-unit.html

http://www.englishrussia.com/?p=872 (that's not the original site)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


I remember being at a social event which happened to be attended
by the guy I knew as our company safety officer. Guess who
dragged his chair right in front of the fire exit ;-)

Here at the university all notices placed on walls/doors must be laminated
to protect the paper from catching fire, well unless they are notices that
tell you
when the next fire alarm test is which tend to remain stuck to doors for
upto a
week without any protection from catching light at all.
We have a similar thing with doors we had lots of office doors replaced
because
they were solid and no one could see into the office to see if anyone was
inside
or if there was a fire in that office, so all doors were replaced with a
door that had a
window in it so you could see inside. Except the head of department and his
secretaries
office next door who were both allowed to cover up the windows with posters
and/or coats.
I guess certain members of staff are immune from fire regulations, or fire
I can't tell which ;-)





I will confess to finding myself more aware of safety matters
than most, mainly because of various work-related stuff over the
years.

At an event I usually at least make sure that I know where the
exits are, and the routes to them. Carrying out such a visual
check I have found:

Emergency exit chained and padlocked: Bury
Marquee with no fire exits, no exit signs, no emergency lighting:
Lincoln.
Previously failed electrical circuit leading to flat batteries in
emergency lights and exit signs: London
Inadequate exit signs and locked door on exit route: Whitby.

Even when the organisers have done their best, I have lost count
of the chairs, piles of bags, push chairs and so forth which have
been placed across the exits. Self-preservation doesn't seem to
be a strong instinct.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 11:40 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!

When taking people abseiling we used to tell them that if we shouted
"ROCK" that meant they had to shrink close to the cliff face and not
look up. Of course they were wearing safety helmets.
We shouted "Rock" no matter what was falling down. Sometimes it was a
spare safety helmet.

I guess it would be amusing for some if a person was injured from a falling
safety
helmet, it would amuse me, although perhaps it shouldn't.
Sometimes you just don;t know whether to laugh or cry ;-)

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:ghbb4h$nqk$1@qmul...

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 11:40 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!

When taking people abseiling we used to tell them that if we shouted
"ROCK" that meant they had to shrink close to the cliff face and not
look up. Of course they were wearing safety helmets.
We shouted "Rock" no matter what was falling down. Sometimes it was a
spare safety helmet.

I guess it would be amusing for some if a person was injured from a
falling safety
helmet, it would amuse me, although perhaps it shouldn't.
Sometimes you just don;t know whether to laugh or cry ;-)



Look at this photo - it is a ladder on the capped chimney of a 2 storey
house - giving access to the 3rd story flat roof conversion - to access a
satellite dish I think. mmmmmmm!


http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...ey=QB6zhjMuivU

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 11:40 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!

When taking people abseiling we used to tell them that if we shouted
"ROCK" that meant they had to shrink close to the cliff face and not
look up. Of course they were wearing safety helmets.
We shouted "Rock" no matter what was falling down. Sometimes it was a
spare safety helmet.


In the holds of ships, the stevedores are told to shout BEWARE!!! and not
LOOKOUT!!! because the foreign sailors take LOOKOUT!!! as meaning, well, to
look out, and some have had their heads nearly knocked off.

:-) LOL

"M" wrote in message
...
Following up to whisky-dave

I guess certain members of staff are immune from fire regulations, or
fire
I can't tell which ;-)

you need an experiment!

M


You need matches. :-)

John wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:ghbb4h$nqk$1@qmul...
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 11:40 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!
When taking people abseiling we used to tell them that if we shouted
"ROCK" that meant they had to shrink close to the cliff face and not
look up. Of course they were wearing safety helmets.
We shouted "Rock" no matter what was falling down. Sometimes it was a
spare safety helmet.
I guess it would be amusing for some if a person was injured from a
falling safety
helmet, it would amuse me, although perhaps it shouldn't.
Sometimes you just don;t know whether to laugh or cry ;-)



Look at this photo - it is a ladder on the capped chimney of a 2 storey
house - giving access to the 3rd story flat roof conversion - to access a
satellite dish I think. mmmmmmm!


http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...ey=QB6zhjMuivU


If tied down, its safe enough.

The message

from Matty F contains these words:

if something is dripping on your head don't look up to see what it is!

When taking people abseiling we used to tell them that if we shouted
"ROCK" that meant they had to shrink close to the cliff face and not
look up. Of course they were wearing safety helmets.
We shouted "Rock" no matter what was falling down. Sometimes it was a
spare safety helmet.

Don't think I have ever heard anyone call out anything other than 'BELOW'.

A quick google suggests 'below' is widely recognised as a climbing call.
I couldn't find any instance of 'rock' as a climbing call.

--
Roger Chapman

On 5 Dec, 09:14, "dennis@home" wrote:

I was watching a film in a cinema, when it finished we all headed for the
emergency exits like we usually do only to find some prat had parked a car
outside the one I was trying to open.
He wont do it again as I nearly broke the door slamming it repeatedly into
his car as hard as I could.

We have to ask -- when you finally made it outside, where had you
parked?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...

Emergency exit chained and padlocked: Bury
Marquee with no fire exits, no exit signs, no emergency lighting:


I was watching a film in a cinema, when it finished we all headed for the
emergency exits like we usually do only to find some prat had parked a car
outside the one I was trying to open.
He wont do it again as I nearly broke the door slamming it repeatedly into
his car as hard as I could.




Hey, quick, hide !! Someone is asking who dented his car door while at the
cinema !!!
I know who, but I'm not telling !!
WaveyDave

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 5 Dec, 09:14, "dennis@home" wrote:

I was watching a film in a cinema, when it finished we all headed for the
emergency exits like we usually do only to find some prat had parked a
car
outside the one I was trying to open.
He wont do it again as I nearly broke the door slamming it repeatedly
into
his car as hard as I could.

We have to ask -- when you finally made it outside, where had you
parked?

I was on the bus.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...

Emergency exit chained and padlocked: Bury
Marquee with no fire exits, no exit signs, no emergency lighting:


I was watching a film in a cinema, when it finished we all headed for the
emergency exits like we usually do only to find some prat had parked a
car outside the one I was trying to open.
He wont do it again as I nearly broke the door slamming it repeatedly
into his car as hard as I could.




Hey, quick, hide !! Someone is asking who dented his car door while at
the cinema !!!
I know who, but I'm not telling !!
WaveyDave


It wasn't a Focus so I won't worry.

In message , John
wrote



http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...g?authkey=QB6z
hjMuivU



The US Navy has some good 'safety related' examples
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...ve/default.htm


--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , John
wrote



http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...g?authkey=QB6z
hjMuivU



The US Navy has some good 'safety related' examples
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...ve/default.htm

Alan


This is a real doozer
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...photo313-1.jpg
It is supposed to be a genuine document, but I think someone is at the wind
up. :-)

original page
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...0/photo313.asp

BigWallop wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , John
wrote


http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...g?authkey=QB6z
hjMuivU


The US Navy has some good 'safety related' examples
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...ve/default.htm

Alan


This is a real doozer
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...photo313-1.jpg
It is supposed to be a genuine document, but I think someone is at the wind
up. :-)

original page
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...0/photo313.asp



It's not too far from the truth.

First that the actual 'explosion' produces no gas like a conventional
one.Its all heat, and the shockwave is at much lower pressure.

Secondly that the main killer is heat. And the attendant hard gamma,
which is essentially heat in another part of the magnetic spectrum.

And finally, that the lingering radiation is small compared with the
blast. What killed people in the Japanese bombs, was absorption over
time of people living in the area: This is a war document and they
probably lied a bit about that, knowing that in any case the military
wouldn't be camping in a radioactive pit for long.

The document would appear to be based pretty much on the official report
on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, which makes interesting reading.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/....html#contents

Note that the references to people being killed 'several times over'
i.e. they got flattened, burned to death and took enough radiation to
kill them as well..Note also, with respect to the above, that the main
killer was direct gamma radiation - i.e. the other frequencies in the EM
spectrum. There were relatively few deaths from residual radiation. This
was possibly due to the fact that the explosion was done as an air
burst, rather than ground burst. Although many sources claim the death
rate remained higher among the population exposed, actual statistical
studies showed that by around 1950, the death rate post the explosions
of the survivors was about the same as the Japanese norm.

In short, the military made a pretty extensive report on the attacks it
had made, and they showed that although the bombs were devastating, they
were not unsurvivable.

If you go further on into the Cold War, you also see that the
development of he H-bomb, relatively 'clean' in terms of fission
products, became the preferred choice for strategic weapons. Those were
weapons capable of sterilising fairly large areas with very little
lingering radiation. I.e. if you didn't get a direct exposure, you would
probably survive: But if you did, advisory military reports would be the
least of your worries. If you made it through the blast and initial
heat/gamma attack, you would probably live.

Its a far cry from that to today, where any exposure of a few percent
above background, about what you get from flying at 30,000 ft, is a
'major nuclear incident'

It suited both the West and the Sovbloc to play up the threat of nuclear
war during the 50's and 60's. To make it as 'unthinkable' as possible:
Nevertheless, the actual figures are by comparison, a lot less chilling
than the popular press and science fiction of the times portrayed it.

What really shifted the world away from world wars post 1945 - at least
nuclear ones - was the simple fact that it became obvious that for the
first time in warfare, casualties among those who sent the military off
to fight might be orders of magnitude higher than amongst the military
themselves. That provided strong political pressure amongst democratic
populations to avoid it.

Aside, if you read the _official_ accounts of Chernobyl*, what is the
most surprising thing is how *few* people died. And that's from very
close up rather nasty radiation. The firefighters lost several people.
All from direct exposure right at the pile. There have been a few
hundred I think thyroid cancers, but these have been survivable.

Nuclear reactors are in a way nastier than atomic explosions: there is
far more low grade fissionable material in them many of which are
chemical poisons, and the radiation tends to be more lingering, and more
alpha/beta type than gamma.

On the other hand, they don't produce *atomic* explosions. Both
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were characterized by reactors being
pushed beyond limits by a combination of events, with safety systems
disabled, by personnel who didn't have the correct training in their
operation. The other major incident, Windscale, was similar in that the
reactor was being run beyond design limits to make weapons grade
plutonium in quantity, and was literally 'open' to the skies.

And although there waa steam explosion at Chernobyl, it did relatively
little direct damage. The most damage was done by the reactor fire, and
he radiation encountered by those who put i out.

"What everybody knows' about nuclear weapons and power, is very much at
odds with the actual facts that are contained in the official reports.

Note that there was no reason for the US report on the Japan bombs to be
biased. they were coldly assessing the results of a wartime experiment,
in terms of its precise destructive power, after effects, psychological
impact, and ultimately defense against it.


* as opposed to the anti-nuclear hysterical ones.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:
snipped

This is a real doozer

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...photo313-1.jpg
It is supposed to be a genuine document, but I think someone is at the
wind
up. :-)

original page

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/pho...0/photo313.asp


It's not too far from the truth.


It isn't a wind up?


First that the actual 'explosion' produces no gas like a conventional
one.Its all heat, and the shockwave is at much lower pressure.


But it's heat that is hotter than standing on the sun for just a second or
two (unless it's night time of course), and the pressure front, although
over a short distance, carries a vacuum behind it. When the low but
sustained pressure front hits an object, it first blows it forward. Then a
bloody great vacuum cleaner comes along at the back of the blower and sucks
the object up into the air. And it does all that in a few seconds while
it's microwave cooking everything else.

Ouch !!! :-)


Secondly that the main killer is heat. And the attendant hard gamma,
which is essentially heat in another part of the magnetic spectrum.


I think the first part of the heat spectrum would do me nicely, thank you.



And finally, that the lingering radiation is small compared with the
blast. What killed people in the Japanese bombs, was absorption over
time of people living in the area: This is a war document and they
probably lied a bit about that, knowing that in any case the military
wouldn't be camping in a radioactive pit for long.


I think it also shocked the people who made it. They knew something of what
could have been, but they didn't expect the devastation that was actually
created. I heard that one of the assistant scientists said something like
"My God, we really have brought hell to the earth". So it shocked a good
few people who should have known better.



The document would appear to be based pretty much on the official report
on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, which makes interesting reading.


http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/....html#contents


That's bookmarked for future reading. I'm a busy man at the mo' :-) But
it does look ike an intersting read.



Note that the references to people being killed 'several times over'
i.e. they got flattened, burned to death and took enough radiation to
kill them as well..Note also, with respect to the above, that the main
killer was direct gamma radiation - i.e. the other frequencies in the EM
spectrum. There were relatively few deaths from residual radiation. This
was possibly due to the fact that the explosion was done as an air
burst, rather than ground burst. Although many sources claim the death
rate remained higher among the population exposed, actual statistical
studies showed that by around 1950, the death rate post the explosions
of the survivors was about the same as the Japanese norm.

In short, the military made a pretty extensive report on the attacks it
had made, and they showed that although the bombs were devastating, they
were not unsurvivable.

If you go further on into the Cold War, you also see that the
development of he H-bomb, relatively 'clean' in terms of fission
products, became the preferred choice for strategic weapons. Those were
weapons capable of sterilising fairly large areas with very little
lingering radiation. I.e. if you didn't get a direct exposure, you would
probably survive: But if you did, advisory military reports would be the
least of your worries. If you made it through the blast and initial
heat/gamma attack, you would probably live.

Its a far cry from that to today, where any exposure of a few percent
above background, about what you get from flying at 30,000 ft, is a
'major nuclear incident'

It suited both the West and the Sovbloc to play up the threat of nuclear
war during the 50's and 60's. To make it as 'unthinkable' as possible:
Nevertheless, the actual figures are by comparison, a lot less chilling
than the popular press and science fiction of the times portrayed it.

What really shifted the world away from world wars post 1945 - at least
nuclear ones - was the simple fact that it became obvious that for the
first time in warfare, casualties among those who sent the military off
to fight might be orders of magnitude higher than amongst the military
themselves. That provided strong political pressure amongst democratic
populations to avoid it.

Aside, if you read the _official_ accounts of Chernobyl*, what is the
most surprising thing is how *few* people died. And that's from very
close up rather nasty radiation. The firefighters lost several people.
All from direct exposure right at the pile. There have been a few
hundred I think thyroid cancers, but these have been survivable.

Nuclear reactors are in a way nastier than atomic explosions: there is
far more low grade fissionable material in them many of which are
chemical poisons, and the radiation tends to be more lingering, and more
alpha/beta type than gamma.

On the other hand, they don't produce *atomic* explosions. Both
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were characterized by reactors being
pushed beyond limits by a combination of events, with safety systems
disabled, by personnel who didn't have the correct training in their
operation. The other major incident, Windscale, was similar in that the
reactor was being run beyond design limits to make weapons grade
plutonium in quantity, and was literally 'open' to the skies.

And although there waa steam explosion at Chernobyl, it did relatively
little direct damage. The most damage was done by the reactor fire, and
he radiation encountered by those who put i out.

"What everybody knows' about nuclear weapons and power, is very much at
odds with the actual facts that are contained in the official reports.

Note that there was no reason for the US report on the Japan bombs to be
biased. they were coldly assessing the results of a wartime experiment,
in terms of its precise destructive power, after effects, psychological
impact, and ultimately defense against it.


* as opposed to the anti-nuclear hysterical ones.


I'll reserve further comment until I read through the document you have
linked to. Although, I must say one thing. I did have a sort of inkling
that the bombing must have been less devastating than was reported to the
public and the world by the press releases. And what brought those thoughts
was the fact that, if it had been as bad as was reported, no one in their
right minds would have been willing to build any further weapons of that
sort, ever again. Yet the US and others were willing to continue with a
nuclear weapons assembly industry.

If it was that devastating, no one would have survived, including the people
who made the thing. That secret would have stayed a forgotten secret.

BigWallop wrote:


But it's heat that is hotter than standing on the sun for just a second or
two (unless it's night time of course), and the pressure front, although
over a short distance, carries a vacuum behind it. When the low but
sustained pressure front hits an object, it first blows it forward. Then a
bloody great vacuum cleaner comes along at the back of the blower and sucks
the object up into the air. And it does all that in a few seconds while
it's microwave cooking everything else.

Ouch !!! :-)


If it is very hot that matters, just have a look at sonoluminescence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "BigWallop"
saying something like:

And what brought those thoughts
was the fact that, if it had been as bad as was reported, no one in their
right minds would have been willing to build any further weapons of that
sort, ever again. Yet the US and others were willing to continue with a
nuclear weapons assembly industry.

If it was that devastating, no one would have survived, including the people
who made the thing. That secret would have stayed a forgotten secret.

Odd leap of logic there.
It continued because it had cost billions and it was a new toy.

"Rod" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:


But it's heat that is hotter than standing on the sun for just a second
or
two (unless it's night time of course), and the pressure front, although
over a short distance, carries a vacuum behind it. When the low but
sustained pressure front hits an object, it first blows it forward.
Then a
bloody great vacuum cleaner comes along at the back of the blower and
sucks
the object up into the air. And it does all that in a few seconds while
it's microwave cooking everything else.

Ouch !!! :-)


If it is very hot that matters, just have a look at sonoluminescence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Rod


Is that the thing that high speed boat propellers have to deal with? If the
propeller moves through the water at a certain speed and frequency, you can
see those little lights sparking off them.

BigWallop wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:

But it's heat that is hotter than standing on the sun for just a second
or
two (unless it's night time of course), and the pressure front, although
over a short distance, carries a vacuum behind it. When the low but
sustained pressure front hits an object, it first blows it forward.
Then a
bloody great vacuum cleaner comes along at the back of the blower and
sucks
the object up into the air. And it does all that in a few seconds while
it's microwave cooking everything else.

Ouch !!! :-)

If it is very hot that matters, just have a look at sonoluminescence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Rod


Is that the thing that high speed boat propellers have to deal with? If the
propeller moves through the water at a certain speed and frequency, you can
see those little lights sparking off them.



Never come across it in relation to propellors. But sounds quite possible.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:23:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There were relatively few deaths from residual radiation. This was
possibly due to the fact that the explosion was done as an air burst,
rather than ground burst.

All the stuff I've seen about radioactive fall out has been mainly based
on the assumption of a ground burst, where vast amounts of material from
the ground are sucked up and irradiated in the fire ball.

Air bursts are good for killing all electronics over a wide area and
eradicating exposed life forms with relatively little physical damage.
Ground bursts are good for massive physical damage but not so effective at
killing electronics and life at the time of explosion but the fall out
renders places not very healthy for a long time.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Rod" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:

But it's heat that is hotter than standing on the sun for just a
second
or
two (unless it's night time of course), and the pressure front,
although
over a short distance, carries a vacuum behind it. When the low but
sustained pressure front hits an object, it first blows it forward.
Then a
bloody great vacuum cleaner comes along at the back of the blower and
sucks
the object up into the air. And it does all that in a few seconds
while
it's microwave cooking everything else.

Ouch !!! :-)

If it is very hot that matters, just have a look at sonoluminescence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Rod


Is that the thing that high speed boat propellers have to deal with? If
the
propeller moves through the water at a certain speed and frequency, you
can
see those little lights sparking off them.



Never come across it in relation to propellors. But sounds quite possible.

Rod

It could be gearbox damage I'm thinking of. :-) LOL

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:32:52 -0000, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Just watching the program on CH4 about the farce that has become H&Safety.
I couldn't believe it when they shown us someone who went into a window
making company in a full suit and tie, gathered the staff around and
proceded to show them how to pick up (in slowmo) a very small box +
contents weighing no more than, I guess, 3lb in weight.

At a place I worked, someone ended up in hospital with a back injury because
he picked up a sheet of paper carelessly.

I didn't see the programme, but the usual trick with lifting and handling
training is to get one of the trainees to pick the, invariably small and
light, box up, then casually say 'thanks, you can put it down now'. Nine
times out of ten they will pick it up following all the rules and put it
down doing everything wrong.

By dropping it on the foot of the H&S guru


--