Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

An 'expert' (think he may have been from the fire service) on the R4 PM
prog explained that USB chargers are not all the same and could give a
much higher voltage than the correct one for the device. So advised
against charging such things from a computer USB socket, etc. He sort of
admitted he wasn't an expert though. He didn't need to.

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote


Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

An 'expert' (think he may have been from the fire service) on the R4 PM
prog explained that USB chargers are not all the same and could give a
much higher voltage than the correct one for the device. So advised
against charging such things from a computer USB socket, etc. He sort of
admitted he wasn't an expert though. He didn't need to.


He's a scouser

Nuff said

[resend]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

I think I posted here of a similar report made by Derbyshire fire last
year, info was circulated to other fire services, I saw some photos of
the damage, the "ejected" battery had set alight bedding, again the
charger wasn't original ...

On 08/08/2014 18:33, Andy Burns wrote:
[resend]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger
which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

I think I posted here of a similar report made by Derbyshire fire last
year, info was circulated to other fire services, I saw some photos of
the damage, the "ejected" battery had set alight bedding, again the
charger wasn't original ...


Merside Fire are quoted on the BBC site as saying:
"We urge people to always use electrical equipment in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions and guidance, always ensure that no
electrical items are left charging overnight or left unattended for a
long period when being charged, and do not mix parts from different
e-cigarettes.

"Only use the original charger or electrical cables supplied and ensure
you purchase electrical items from a reputable source."

Well that should kill the universal micro USB socket initiative on
mobiles off !

Robert wrote:

Merside Fire are quoted on the BBC site as saying:
"We urge people to always use electrical equipment in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions and guidance, always ensure that no
electrical items are left charging overnight or left unattended for a
long period when being charged, and do not mix parts from different
e-cigarettes.

Bigclive has done a few teardowns of disposable e-fags on UTube, I think
he found they have unprotected Li-Ion cells in them, all it takes is the
manufacturer to use those batteries in a rechargeable fag instead of
ones with a charge protection circuit, I suppose

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:01:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

An 'expert' (think he may have been from the fire service) on the R4 PM
prog explained that USB chargers are not all the same and could give a
much higher voltage than the correct one for the device. So advised
against charging such things from a computer USB socket, etc. He sort of
admitted he wasn't an expert though. He didn't need to.


I thought he did OK, and gave good general advice without commenting
too much about the individual case which the Coroner Court has yet to
give a verdict. He didn't mention the O2.

Follow the manufactures instructions, use the supplied charger and
don't leave unattended.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:01:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

An 'expert' (think he may have been from the fire service) on the R4 PM
prog explained that USB chargers are not all the same and could give a
much higher voltage than the correct one for the device. So advised
against charging such things from a computer USB socket, etc. He sort of
admitted he wasn't an expert though. He didn't need to.


I thought he did OK, and gave good general advice without commenting
too much about the individual case which the Coroner Court has yet to
give a verdict. He didn't mention the O2.

Follow the manufactures instructions, use the supplied charger and
don't leave unattended.



If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then they shouldn't
be using the USB standard interface. The problem is the cigs surely, not
the chargers?

Tim

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 21:49:53 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:01:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

An 'expert' (think he may have been from the fire service) on the R4 PM
prog explained that USB chargers are not all the same and could give a
much higher voltage than the correct one for the device. So advised
against charging such things from a computer USB socket, etc. He sort of
admitted he wasn't an expert though. He didn't need to.


I thought he did OK, and gave good general advice without commenting
too much about the individual case which the Coroner Court has yet to
give a verdict. He didn't mention the O2.

Follow the manufactures instructions, use the supplied charger and
don't leave unattended.



If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then they shouldn't
be using the USB standard interface. The problem is the cigs surely, not
the chargers?

Tim

That point was made by the fire officer interviewee. He said something
along the lines of different USB devices give differing voltages

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In article ,
Graham. wrote:
Follow the manufactures instructions, use the supplied charger and
don't leave unattended.

Great advice. So you sit there watching it - or your phone, etc - while it
charges?

More sensible would be to charge the device on a reasonably flame proof
surface like a kitchen worktop - and away from flammable materials. Which
anyone with common sense would do anyway.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Graham. wrote:
If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then they
shouldn't be using the USB standard interface. The problem is the cigs
surely, not the chargers?

Tim

That point was made by the fire officer interviewee. He said something
along the lines of different USB devices give differing voltages

Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB outlets
supply 5 volts.

--
*DON'T SWEAT THE PETTY THINGS AND DON'T PET THE SWEATY THINGS.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 12:17:07 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Graham. wrote:

If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then they
shouldn't be using the USB standard interface. The problem is the cigs
surely, not the chargers?

That point was made by the fire officer interviewee. He said something
along the lines of different USB devices give differing voltages

Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB outlets
supply 5 volts.

Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current apps. Not every appliance is ok with that.


NT

did anything that was so called standard ever work as designed. Its hard to
think of one which has not been abused in some way.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Robert" wrote in message
...
On 08/08/2014 18:33, Andy Burns wrote:
[resend]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger
which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

I think I posted here of a similar report made by Derbyshire fire last
year, info was circulated to other fire services, I saw some photos of
the damage, the "ejected" battery had set alight bedding, again the
charger wasn't original ...


Merside Fire are quoted on the BBC site as saying:
"We urge people to always use electrical equipment in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions and guidance, always ensure that no electrical
items are left charging overnight or left unattended for a long period
when being charged, and do not mix parts from different e-cigarettes.

"Only use the original charger or electrical cables supplied and ensure
you purchase electrical items from a reputable source."

Well that should kill the universal micro USB socket initiative on mobiles
off !

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got damaged
making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a charger which
wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

It was very timely just after Radio 4 broadcast last week's episode of
"Inside the Ethics Committee".

Last week's episode covered the issues around patients with severe COPD
who really need to go on to oxygen, but who won't or can't give up smoking.
I must admit, I hadn't realised just how dangerous that is until listening
to the program and then talking with someone I know in the profession
afterwards.

When you use a nasal oxygen feed, excess oxygen ends up in your clothing,
beard, bedding, etc. and can stay there for 5 minutes afterwards. If you
get a cigarette anywhere near, your clothes don't simply ignite more easily,
they pretty much explode into extremely fierce flames for a few seconds
after which they are completely burnt off. This has even happened to
visitors who have stepped outside for a fag when visiting the sick person.
Another problem is that the plastic tubing used for the oxygen is highly
flammable in concentrated oxygen, and has resulted in patients who have
managed to get it alight basically having a blowlamp up each nostral until
they can pull it off. (Non-flammable versions are available, but much more
expensive.)

So there's an initial dilema when deciding if a smoker can be allowed to
go on to have oxygen (and it requires assessment by local fire authority,
bearing in mind the likelyhood of other residents in the building being
caught up in any resulting fire, etc). Then there's a secondary issue if
someone who is dependant on oxygen starts getting forgetful, e.g. not
turning the oxygen off for at least 5 mins before lighting up a fag, or
going in to the kitchen and putting the kettle on, etc. Do you take the
oxygen away, knowing it will curtail the quality of life if not life
itself, but likely save other residents from a resulting fire?

Fantastic program.

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

wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 12:17:07 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Graham. wrote:

If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then they
shouldn't be using the USB standard interface. The problem is the cigs
surely, not the chargers?

That point was made by the fire officer interviewee. He said something
along the lines of different USB devices give differing voltages

Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB outlets
supply 5 volts.

Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current apps.
Not every appliance is ok with that.

I imagine, like a lot of cheapy crappy stuff, the fudge is to do with
charging current, not the voltage. Instead of bothering with a charge
control circuit, just cripple the supplied charger to, say, 25mA and let
thermal dissapation sort itself out. Plug in a proper "unrestricted"
500mA laptop/charger and all hell will, literally, break loose.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 08:32:49 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

So there's an initial dilema when deciding if a smoker can be allowed to
go on to have oxygen (and it requires assessment by local fire
authority, bearing in mind the likelyhood of other residents in the
building being caught up in any resulting fire, etc). Then there's a
secondary issue if someone who is dependant on oxygen starts getting
forgetful, e.g. not turning the oxygen off for at least 5 mins before
lighting up a fag, or going in to the kitchen and putting the kettle on,
etc. Do you take the oxygen away, knowing it will curtail the quality of
life if not life itself, but likely save other residents from a
resulting fire?

Simple solution.

Show the patient a video demonstrating the issue, and ask them to choose
for themselves.

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
Seems a chap was injured when the electronic cigarette he was charging
exploded. He was on oxygen, and the oxygen pipe or whatever got
damaged making things far worse. Seems he may also have been using a
charger which wasn't supplied with the cigarette kit.

It was very timely just after Radio 4 broadcast last week's episode of
"Inside the Ethics Committee".

Last week's episode covered the issues around patients with severe COPD
who really need to go on to oxygen, but who won't or can't give up
smoking. I must admit, I hadn't realised just how dangerous that is
until listening to the program and then talking with someone I know in
the profession afterwards.

[snip]

Yes, I heard it too. Fascinating stuff.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB
outlets supply 5 volts.

Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current apps.
Not every appliance is ok with that.

From a computer USB socket? How to they manage that?

However, I suppose it's no different in practice from the older jack
system once common for low volt DC. The voltage there could be anything.
Even AC.

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian writes:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 08:32:49 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

So there's an initial dilema when deciding if a smoker can be allowed to
go on to have oxygen (and it requires assessment by local fire
authority, bearing in mind the likelyhood of other residents in the
building being caught up in any resulting fire, etc). Then there's a
secondary issue if someone who is dependant on oxygen starts getting
forgetful, e.g. not turning the oxygen off for at least 5 mins before
lighting up a fag, or going in to the kitchen and putting the kettle on,
etc. Do you take the oxygen away, knowing it will curtail the quality of
life if not life itself, but likely save other residents from a
resulting fire?

Simple solution.

Show the patient a video demonstrating the issue, and ask them to choose
for themselves.

Patient will always say yes. It's more a question of assessing the
likelyhood of them setting light to themselves, and the knock-on
consequences of doing so to others around them, verses the severely
curtailed quality of life if they can't use oxygen.

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

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 11:12:57 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB
outlets supply 5 volts.
Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current apps.
Not every appliance is ok with that.
From a computer USB socket? How to they manage that?

from some chargers

However, I suppose it's no different in practice from the older jack
system once common for low volt DC. The voltage there could be anything.
Even AC.

Its very different, most usb kit works together ok. But not all.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 11:12:57 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB
outlets supply 5 volts.
Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current
apps. Not every appliance is ok with that.
From a computer USB socket? How to they manage that?

from some chargers

Right. And they have type approval with a non standard voltage? I'm
surprised the phone makers haven't cottoned on to that one - it must gall
them not to be able to sell you an overpriced charger.


However, I suppose it's no different in practice from the older jack
system once common for low volt DC. The voltage there could be
anything. Even AC.

Its very different, most usb kit works together ok. But not all.

Certainly a high current device won't work from a low current USB. But
neither will it burst into flames.


NT

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 12:17:07 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Graham. wrote:

If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then they
shouldn't be using the USB standard interface. The problem is the cigs
surely, not the chargers?

That point was made by the fire officer interviewee. He said something
along the lines of different USB devices give differing voltages

Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB outlets
supply 5 volts.

Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current apps.
Not every appliance is ok with that.

So there are devices available that burst into flames with a 0.25V
overvoltage?

That sounds like exceedingly poor/dangerous design.

Tim

Tim+ wrote:

That sounds like exceedingly poor/dangerous design.

That's the message the Mersey spokesman was trying to get across ...

Andy Burns wrote:
Tim+ wrote:

That sounds like exceedingly poor/dangerous design.

That's the message the Mersey spokesman was trying to get across ...

Except that he seemed to be blaming the chargers rather than the
e-cigarettes. I'm not saying that there aren't shoddy chargers out there
too but it sounds to me like the primary problem lies with the cigarettes.

Putting a "standard" socket like a USB one on a device is just inviting
folk to use any USB power supply. If a manufacturer decided to make a 12V
rechargeable touch that connected to it's charger unit using a three pin
13amp plug, I think they would be held liable for fires resulting from folk
inadvertently plugging the torch direct into the mains rather than the
charger.

If they're going to use a USB socket then the device should be designed to
cope with anything a USB outlet can reasonably be expected to produce.

I thank god I never took up smoking...

Tim

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 2:08:02 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 11:12:57 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB
outlets supply 5 volts.
Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current
apps. Not every appliance is ok with that.
From a computer USB socket? How to they manage that?
from some chargers
Right. And they have type approval with a non standard voltage? I'm
surprised the phone makers haven't cottoned on to that one - it must gall
them not to be able to sell you an overpriced charger.

5.25v is within the usb spec. IIRC it was phone mfrs that started the 5.25v thing - but I might not RC there.

However, I suppose it's no different in practice from the older jack
system once common for low volt DC. The voltage there could be
anything. Even AC.
Its very different, most usb kit works together ok. But not all.
Certainly a high current device won't work from a low current USB. But
neither will it burst into flames.

News reports...


NT

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:12:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB
outlets supply 5 volts.

Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current apps.
Not every appliance is ok with that.

From a computer USB socket? How to they manage that?

They don't. It's just some wallwarts that offer the higher voltage,
usually 5.2v rather than right up against the top of the tolerance
range (4.75 to 5.25 volts).

IME, you're unlikely to see a voltage higher than 5.16v on a PC USB
socket since it's dependent upon the PSU's 5 volt (or possibly the
5VSB) rail.

However, I suppose it's no different in practice from the older jack
system once common for low volt DC. The voltage there could be anything.
Even AC.

It's actually a _LOT_ different to the co-axial plug system commonly
used for low voltage DC supplies. For starters, there's the _single_
voltage standard of 5 volts (+/-5%).
--
J B Good

In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Except that he seemed to be blaming the chargers rather than the
e-cigarettes. I'm not saying that there aren't shoddy chargers out there
too but it sounds to me like the primary problem lies with the
cigarettes.

If it were the 'cigarette' which burst into flames when in use, it would
be to blame. But when charging? How is it any different from any other
device which uses re-chargeable batteries?

And the advice to never leave such things unattended when charging just
plain ludicrous. As is any advice which you must know everyone will ignore.

I do use one of these devices. But not the disposable sort, or one which
looks anything like a cigarette. It is at least as well engineered as any
other similar cordless device I've seen and much better than many. The
battery pack includes an electronic push switch which also acts as
overload protection. And shuts the pack down before fully exhausted -
necessary for decent Li-Ion life.

The charger has an ordinary 5 volt USB outlet wall wart with an adaptor
lead which plugs into it. The other end contains the charger and battery
pack socket - it screws in. Charge time from flat is about 4 hours, and it
shuts off afterwards. None of it gets more than slightly warm.

Perhaps the R4 'expert' would sit watching it charge for those 4 hours or
so.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Johny B Good wrote:
From a computer USB socket? How to they manage that?

They don't. It's just some wallwarts that offer the higher voltage,
usually 5.2v rather than right up against the top of the tolerance
range (4.75 to 5.25 volts).

Right. So isn't the cause of these fires, as was implied. They talked
about 'the wrong' chargers being used. If they are all to the same spec,
they can only have the wrong name on them.

IME, you're unlikely to see a voltage higher than 5.16v on a PC USB
socket since it's dependent upon the PSU's 5 volt (or possibly the
5VSB) rail.

Quite. If the USB voltages from a computer are all over the pace, it
likely wouldn't be a working computer. ;-)

However, I suppose it's no different in practice from the older jack
system once common for low volt DC. The voltage there could be anything.
Even AC.

It's actually a _LOT_ different to the co-axial plug system commonly
used for low voltage DC supplies. For starters, there's the _single_
voltage standard of 5 volts (+/-5%).

Think you missed the point I was making. The expert implied these fires
were caused by using the wrong charger. Now since all the cigarette
chargers I've seen are USB types this shouldn't be the case. It should be
far less likely than before when the same connector was used for a variety
of voltages, etc.

Basically, trying to put the blame on the individual, rather than
risking the wrath (and possible legal action) of a maker.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/08/2014 02:03, wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 12:17:07 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Graham.
wrote:

If they should ONLY be used with the supplied charger then
they shouldn't be using the USB standard interface. The
problem is the cigs surely, not the chargers?

That point was made by the fire officer interviewee. He said
something along the lines of different USB devices give differing
voltages

Which is nonsense. Unless faulty or designed by an idiot, all USB
outlets supply 5 volts.

Unfortunately not, 5.25v has been used for higher charging current
apps. Not every appliance is ok with that.



They should be as that is still within the USB spec.

Sounds like duff appliances to me.

If we ever see a proper report it will probably say the USB charger was
duff in the first place.
If it wasn't the cigs need to be recalled.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Except that he seemed to be blaming the chargers rather than the
e-cigarettes. I'm not saying that there aren't shoddy chargers out there
too but it sounds to me like the primary problem lies with the
cigarettes.

If it were the 'cigarette' which burst into flames when in use, it would
be to blame. But when charging? How is it any different from any other
device which uses re-chargeable batteries?

Well, these are lithium batteries after all, so a little different to 'any'
other devise using rechargeables, an overcharged ni-cad battery vents a bit
and dies, an overcharged lead acid gasses untill it boils dry, then buckles
the plates,

But a lithium battery overcharged goes into an exothermic reaction thingy
and goes up like rocket fuel.

i imagine most of the fag lookalike e-fags have no space inside for the
charging circuitry, so they built it into the charger supplied with the
unit, they just decided to use the USB plug and socket arangement for
connections as that's what everyone is used to, not to mention the parts are
available for fractions of a pence per hundred to the manufacturer.

These e-fags are not approved by the government or the stop smoking
charities, are made in china by slave labour to a knocked off design for a
couple of pence a unit, is it any wonder the odd one burst into flames.


And the advice to never leave such things unattended when charging just
plain ludicrous. As is any advice which you must know everyone will
ignore.

i think anything with lithium rechargeable batteries in it will have that
warning somewhere, re-charging is the most dangerous stage of use, i
remember when i first started using li-po batteries with my electric RC
plane,
i was advised to charge the pack in a fire safe or BBQ on the patio as the
likelyhood of the pack going into a thermal runaway was very high even with
normal charging... which was pretty primative at the time... whack in the
power and try to bleed the excess off with a few zeners and resistors.

The latest li-po packs are much safer, and the computerised charger i now
have makes it very unlikely something bad will happen, but the warning is
still on the literature that comes with the pack, and it's not hard to see
why...

Burn the house down from a runaway lithium pack, no use blaming the
manufacturers, they told you it was dangerous, and if you had been watching
it charge you wouldn't have burnt the house down,
not their fault you didn't read or follow the advise given in the small
print

And lithium primary cells can be even more dangerous, short one of those
buggers out and they have been known to melt metal bodied torches from the
heat produced,

On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 10:24:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Do you take the oxygen away, knowing it will curtail the quality
of
life if not life itself, but likely save other residents from a
resulting fire?

Simple solution.

Show the patient a video demonstrating the issue, and ask them to
choose for themselves.

Patient will always say yes.

But will have a much better understanding of the consequencies to
them and others of an oxygen enriched fire. Far better than just a
few words from their consultant or a leaflet that won't be read. As
you say the patient will say "just give me the fing oxygen".

It's more a question of assessing the likelyhood of them setting light
to themselves, and the knock-on consequences of doing so to others
around them, verses the severely curtailed quality of life if they can't
use oxygen.

I'd say that if some one isn't prepared to make life style changes to
improve their health why should the rest of us pick up the tab for
their treatment? They had the choice to start with, take the
consequencies of that choice.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
Gazz wrote:
These e-fags are not approved by the government or the stop smoking
charities, are made in china by slave labour to a knocked off design for
a couple of pence a unit, is it any wonder the odd one burst into
flames.

You don't have any Chinese made products? You will be in a minority of
one, then.

Anything which plugs into the mains and sold in this country has to comply
with regs no matter what it is.

And of course the government doesn't want to encourage their use. They'd
loose the vast amount of revenue from tobacco taxes.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
It's more a question of assessing the likelyhood of them setting light
to themselves, and the knock-on consequences of doing so to others
around them, verses the severely curtailed quality of life if they
can't use oxygen.

I'd say that if some one isn't prepared to make life style changes to
improve their health why should the rest of us pick up the tab for
their treatment? They had the choice to start with, take the
consequencies of that choice.

Dangerous ground, that one. Many get serious injuries playing sports or
from dangerous hobbies. Since that was their choice and they knew the
risks, why should the rest of us pay for their treatment?

Other thing, of course, is that the taxes raised on tobacco sales is
greater than the costs to the NHS for treating smoking related conditions.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Gazz" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Except that he seemed to be blaming the chargers rather than the
e-cigarettes. I'm not saying that there aren't shoddy chargers out there
too but it sounds to me like the primary problem lies with the
cigarettes.

If it were the 'cigarette' which burst into flames when in use, it would
be to blame. But when charging? How is it any different from any other
device which uses re-chargeable batteries?

Well, these are lithium batteries after all, so a little different to
'any' other devise using rechargeables, an overcharged ni-cad battery
vents a bit and dies, an overcharged lead acid gasses untill it boils
dry, then buckles the plates,

But a lithium battery overcharged goes into an exothermic reaction thingy
and goes up like rocket fuel.

i imagine most of the fag lookalike e-fags have no space inside for the
charging circuitry, so they built it into the charger supplied with the
unit, they just decided to use the USB plug and socket arangement for
connections as that's what everyone is used to, not to mention the parts
are available for fractions of a pence per hundred to the manufacturer.

Which is surely a truly terrible idea? This is one of those occasions when
we could really do with an EU ban on any such arrangement (if this is the
actual problem).

Tim

In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
i imagine most of the fag lookalike e-fags have no space inside for
the charging circuitry, so they built it into the charger supplied
with the unit, they just decided to use the USB plug and socket
arangement for connections as that's what everyone is used to, not to
mention the parts are available for fractions of a pence per hundred
to the manufacturer.

Which is surely a truly terrible idea? This is one of those occasions
when we could really do with an EU ban on any such arrangement (if this
is the actual problem).

Surely any device which plugs into the mains for charging is already
covered by such regs?

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 10:24:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Do you take the oxygen away, knowing it will curtail the quality
of
life if not life itself, but likely save other residents from a
resulting fire?

Simple solution.

Show the patient a video demonstrating the issue, and ask them to
choose for themselves.

Patient will always say yes.

But will have a much better understanding of the consequencies to
them and others of an oxygen enriched fire. Far better than just a
few words from their consultant or a leaflet that won't be read. As
you say the patient will say "just give me the fing oxygen".

It's more a question of assessing the likelyhood of them setting light
to themselves, and the knock-on consequences of doing so to others
around them, verses the severely curtailed quality of life if they can't
use oxygen.

I'd say that if some one isn't prepared to make life style changes to
improve their health why should the rest of us pick up the tab for
their treatment? They had the choice to start with, take the
consequencies of that choice.

The rest of us pick up the tab either way, and it's probably way more
expensive to look after someone who can't get out of a chair than it
is to supply oxygen to them, keeping them minimally self-mobile to
the toilet, kitchen, bed, etc.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
It's more a question of assessing the likelyhood of them setting light
to themselves, and the knock-on consequences of doing so to others
around them, verses the severely curtailed quality of life if they
can't use oxygen.

I'd say that if some one isn't prepared to make life style changes to
improve their health why should the rest of us pick up the tab for
their treatment? They had the choice to start with, take the
consequencies of that choice.

Dangerous ground, that one. Many get serious injuries playing sports or
from dangerous hobbies. Since that was their choice and they knew the
risks, why should the rest of us pay for their treatment?

No activity is entirely risk-free, and sports are generally regarded as
beneficial to society. Smoking isn't.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On 10/08/14 17:08, Mike Barnes wrote:
sports are generally regarded as beneficial to society. Smoking isn't.

Generally regarded. But it is of immense benefit to society. The taxes
alone are billions. And the fact that smokers die quickly and
unequivocally means less NHS bills for the rest of us to pay.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/14 17:08, Mike Barnes wrote:
sports are generally regarded as beneficial to society. Smoking
isn't.

Generally regarded. But it is of immense benefit to society. The
taxes alone are billions. And the fact that smokers die quickly and
unequivocally means less NHS bills for the rest of us to pay.

Some would disagree.

http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf

"Smoking is a health problem, the costs of which include sickness, pain,
grief and misery. But tobacco use also imposes a significant economic
burden on society. In addition to the direct medical costs of treating
tobacco-induced illnesses there are other indirect costs including loss
of productivity, fire damage and environmental harm from cigarette
litter and destructive farming practices. The total burden caused by
tobacco products more than outweighs any economic benefit from their
manufacture and sale."

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf

"Smoking is a health problem, the costs of which include sickness, pain,
grief and misery. But tobacco use also imposes a significant economic
burden on society. In addition to the direct medical costs of treating
tobacco-induced illnesses there are other indirect costs including loss
of productivity, fire damage and environmental harm from cigarette
litter and destructive farming practices. The total burden caused by
tobacco products more than outweighs any economic benefit from their
manufacture and sale."

But doesn't mention the taxation revenue.

And hardly an unbiased viewpoint.

--
*Why is it considered necessary to screw down the lid of a coffin?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf

"Smoking is a health problem, the costs of which include sickness,
pain, grief and misery. But tobacco use also imposes a significant
economic burden on society. In addition to the direct medical costs
of treating tobacco-induced illnesses there are other indirect costs
including loss of productivity, fire damage and environmental harm
from cigarette litter and destructive farming practices. The total
burden caused by tobacco products more than outweighs any economic
benefit from their manufacture and sale."

But doesn't mention the taxation revenue.

Which BTW is some 12 billion. That article puts the costs to the NHS at
2.7 billion.

And hardly an unbiased viewpoint.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.