Spike wrote:

On 23/12/2019 13:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

It's not for the squeamish, but the BBC drama 'Bodies' on iPlayer
explains why the suing of doctors is rare - summed up as 'doctors look
after doctors, even the bad ones'. The drama doesn't show senior
doctors, and hospital management, in a good light.

The clue here is in the word "drama". If you have any kind of case (or
indeed if you haven't) it is always possible to find a medical expert
who will condemn the offending doctor. One possible reason for failure
in court is that the doctor did nothing wrong, despite the litigant's
convictions.

The clue here is in the words 'did nothing wrong', as other doctors,
knowing that at some time they could well be in the same position, come
out on the side of their colleague.

No; the clue here is that most decent people tell the truth. And
aren't constantly trying to sue the NHS to make up for their own
misfortunes. It may well be that sometimes things get covered up. But
much more common is misadventure or illness that can neither be
predicted nor prevented.



If it isn't part
of the official diagnosis/treatment algorithm, it won't get mentioned.
It's left to self-help groups and the like to spread the word. Arthritis
is another similar area - anecdata suggests not consuming tomatoes and
potatoes can ameliorate the discomfort, but you'll never hear that in a
doctor's surgery.

Ah yes. I remember your advice re ignoring the Government's previous
alcohol consumption limit and your advocating a not 21 units but 60+.
Oddly, since then the mention of even moderate consumption sends you
into a tirade.

Many people have failed to notice that we now live in an era of Virtue
Signalling, Political Correctness. Perception Management, Identity
Politics, etc etc, and this is just as prevalent in the medical field as
in the 'climate change' industry. One either believes in what gets
handed out as the latest gospel, or works out why one is being fed such
things and in what ways the actual facts are being manipulated. Perhaps
your frequent mentions of steak, duck, goose, Calafornia wine and
Bushmills whisky are related to cognitive dissonance, given the current
war on booze and red meats from the great and the good.

Fashion has actually swung back in favour of red meat recently, I
gather.

I expect XR very soon will be organising a protest about that, probably
over a steak-and-wine dinner...


--

Roger Hayter

On 23/12/2019 17:01, Andrew wrote:
On 23/12/2019 05:10, alan_m wrote:
On 22/12/2019 17:28, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough and
are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of
moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?



Has the copper wire gone green?


That takes ages, and without coal fires maybe never.

The new swimming pool in Worthing is clad with copper
(it's right on the seafront). Started off nice shiny
copper but went dark, dull brown after a couple of months
and that is how it has stayed.

That could be due to ****.

--
Adam

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially from it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their patented product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs & processes.


NT

On Monday, 23 December 2019 20:08:24 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

The clue here is in the words 'did nothing wrong', as other doctors,
knowing that at some time they could well be in the same position, come
out on the side of their colleague.

No; the clue here is that most decent people tell the truth. And
aren't constantly trying to sue the NHS to make up for their own
misfortunes. It may well be that sometimes things get covered up. But
much more common is misadventure or illness that can neither be
predicted nor prevented.

All the above are very common. IM observation the NHS are too often shockingly incompetent & careless.

Andrew wrote:
On 22/12/2019 19:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Since Autumn chunks of moss
have been falling down almost every day

Round here it's the crows and rooks that dislodge the moss while
pecking to find insects of some sort.

This is the first year that this has been happening.



Scrap bits of lead flashing bent around the copper wire at
intervals might have had more effect at detering moss.

I use a long extending decorators pole with a garden hoe
connected to end, so I can stand at the top of the ladder
at eaves height and reach most of the roof.


Ive tried two methods. Waiting until a long dry spell then brushing (I can
walk on our roof) and a power washer.

The former is hard work, especially as it is generally hot, the power
washer is very messy but much easier.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

Thats not true of most govt funded medical research.

That only happens when the study conclusion
promotes their patented product.

Thats bull**** too with most govt funded medical research.

Hence studies mostly don't get done
for unpatentable drugs & processes.

Thats bull**** too.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:53:15 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive.
You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially from
it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their patented
product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs &
processes.


NT

It's true about bringing a drug to market. But if you are testing a
physical intervention which is a normal activity or an effect of diet
involving normal food you don't need toxicity and safety trials.
Neither do you have to complete prescribed safety and efficacy studies.
So if there is convincing anecdotal evidence a charity or a university
department may fund a study on relatively small numbers to see if a
positive effect can be identified. For diet, observational studies,
with all their disadvantages of proper control and confounding, may be
preferred to interventions as, unfortunately, few people will stick to a
dietary restriction or addition for more than a few days even if they
promise to.





--

Roger Hayter

On Monday, 23 December 2019 22:53:27 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

Thats not true of most govt funded medical research.

That only happens when the study conclusion
promotes their patented product.

Thats bull**** too with most govt funded medical research.

Hence studies mostly don't get done
for unpatentable drugs & processes.

Thats bull**** too.

you're proving me correct in your own weird way
Strange how there are people that seem to be dedicated to getting things wrong. If only they could realise it they could just invert their answers & be a good bit smarter.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 22:53:27 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a
word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients
any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want
us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

Thats not true of most govt funded medical research.

That only happens when the study conclusion
promotes their patented product.

Thats bull**** too with most govt funded medical research.

Hence studies mostly don't get done
for unpatentable drugs & processes.

Thats bull**** too.

you're proving me correct in your own weird way

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

On 23/12/2019 22:53:15, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger HayterÂ* wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one.Â*Â* As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory virusesÂ* and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant.Â* So I don't believe a word
of it.Â* There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

Thats not true of most govt funded medical research.

Most funding of medical research is private.

Fredxx wrote:

On 23/12/2019 22:53:15, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

That's not true of most govt funded medical research.

Most funding of medical research is private.

Most in terms of cash and manpower is by drug firms; drugs are
incredibly expensive to license. But if you look at in terms of
number of different research topics the picture is somewhat different,
because much non-drug research is much, much cheaper. And a
epidemiological research, for instance, is rarely privately funded apart
from charities, which are functionally more part of academia than of
business.

--

Roger Hayter

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 23/12/2019 22:53:15, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a
word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

Thats not true of most govt funded medical research.

Most funding of medical research is private.

While that is true of new drugs, it isnt true of the
most basic medical research and deciding stuff
like that question of whether there is any interaction
between some drugs and some food, whether meds
or surgery is more effective with stuff like reflux or
cancer, or even whether keyhole surgery works
better than full surgery. Let alone lifestyle stuff
like why alergys are so much more common
than they used to be, or what causes SIDs etc.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:09:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


you're proving me correct in your own weird way

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

You certainly keep bull****ting your way FAST into your grave, senile Usenet
scum!

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 13:55:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

That¢s not true of most govt funded medical research.

Most funding of medical research is private.

While that is true of new drugs, it isnt true of the
most basic medical research and deciding stuff

What did medical research reveal was the matter with you, you senile
asshole? Something like "Advanced senility and cantankerousness resulting in
utter loneliness and anti-social behaviour, like insipidly trolling on
Usenet around the clock, accompanied by chronic sleep disorder"?

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 23:27:09 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive.
You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially from
it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their patented
product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs &
processes.


NT

It's true about bringing a drug to market. But if you are testing a
physical intervention which is a normal activity or an effect of diet
involving normal food you don't need toxicity and safety trials.
Neither do you have to complete prescribed safety and efficacy studies.
So if there is convincing anecdotal evidence a charity or a university
department may fund a study on relatively small numbers to see if a
positive effect can be identified. For diet, observational studies,
with all their disadvantages of proper control and confounding, may be
preferred to interventions as, unfortunately, few people will stick to a
dietary restriction or addition for more than a few days even if they
promise to.


In the area of medicine in which I am most involved, some of the absolute basics have never been properly assessed.

In the 1950s synthetic medicines became available and, over the next twenty or so years, the former animal-based medicines were effectively phased out.. Yet there is not one single research paper which showed this to be safe, effective or desirable. (Except on grounds of cost.)

Even now, there is next to no direct comparison and the very few bits of research seem to show some benefit to the animal-based medicine but are dismissed as only the patients' opinion - nothing really measurable.

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5 years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough and are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never mind and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes time to
work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss. It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours. But you'd have to somehow spray it all
over the roof.

On 24/12/2019 09:06, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 23 December 2019 23:27:09 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive.
You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially from
it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their patented
product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs &
processes.


NT

It's true about bringing a drug to market. But if you are testing a
physical intervention which is a normal activity or an effect of diet
involving normal food you don't need toxicity and safety trials.
Neither do you have to complete prescribed safety and efficacy studies.
So if there is convincing anecdotal evidence a charity or a university
department may fund a study on relatively small numbers to see if a
positive effect can be identified. For diet, observational studies,
with all their disadvantages of proper control and confounding, may be
preferred to interventions as, unfortunately, few people will stick to a
dietary restriction or addition for more than a few days even if they
promise to.


In the area of medicine in which I am most involved, some of the absolute basics have never been properly assessed.

In the 1950s synthetic medicines became available and, over the next twenty or so years, the former animal-based medicines were effectively phased out. Yet there is not one single research paper which showed this to be safe, effective or desirable. (Except on grounds of cost.)

Even now, there is next to no direct comparison and the very few bits of research seem to show some benefit to the animal-based medicine but are dismissed as only the patients' opinion - nothing really measurable.



What I'm about to say isn't intended to be critical of the doctors etc
who prescribe drugs etc.

I've noticed on a couple of occasions, there is an element of 'try this
first, it generally works'. If it doesn't, they work down a list, based
on a mix of collective and personal experience until, hopefully, they
find a drug, or combination, that either works or at least helps.

That may sound like they are fubbling in the dark but I see it another
way. Firstly, our (as in the collective of human knowledge)
understanding of how bodies work etc is anything but complete and
different people, for a variety of reasons, react in different ways, are
sensitive to certain drugs, conditions, etc. A doctor, faced with
someone presenting a set of symptoms, perhaps verbally, has to make his
best assessment on a way forward - tests may be available to help etc.-
but, whatever the dataset he has it will never be complete or perfect.

Sometimes the 'holes' in the data won't make a difference in real terms,
in others they will result in side effects, the treatment not working,
or even something more serious.

Provided the Doctor has made the best (for some definition of best)
decision - perhaps what most others would have done- then they can't
really be blamed.

I'm not naive enough to suggest there aren't incompetent doctors - some
cases that are reported are quite frightening- but others, where doctors
have been, in my view, incorrectly blamed are due to either wider issues
or people not accepting that our (ie the collective knowledge referred
to above) understanding of the human body is anything but complete.

A prime example is the female doctor who was pilloried following the
death of a child. Many of her colleagues rightly in my view pointed out,
in the same position, they could well have acted as she did. The problem
there was a systematic failure for which she carried the can.

On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough and are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never mind
and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss.Â* It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours.Â* But you'd have to somehow spray it all
over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm not
suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water the
garden etc.

Brian Reay wrote:
On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough and
are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of
moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss.Â* It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours.Â* But you'd have to somehow spray it all
over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm not
suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water the
garden etc.

I believe it is used to treat anaemia, so certainly not toxic in small
doses :-) If watering the garden with it, note that if sufficiently
concentrated, it will tend to noticeably iron stain light paving stones
and similar things.

On 24/12/2019 12:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:38:30 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough and are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never mind
and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss.Â* It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours.Â* But you'd have to somehow spray it all
over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm not
suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water the
garden etc.

No, in low concentrations such as you'd get in your water butt it's
not toxic to plants. In fact it's one of the chemicals recommended for
acidifying soil when wanting to grow lime-hating plants such as
rhododendrons, or for 'bluing' hydrangea flowers.


Excellent, thank you.

On 24/12/2019 11:48, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough
and are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of
moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss.Â* It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours.Â* But you'd have to somehow spray it
all over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm
not suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water
the garden etc.

I believe it is used to treat anaemia, so certainly not toxic in small
doses :-)Â* If watering the garden with it, note that if sufficiently
concentrated, it will tend to noticeably iron stain light paving stones
and similar things.


Thank you.

Mainly the water is used for the green house and veg etc.

On 24/12/2019 11:48, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough
and are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of
moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss.Â* It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours.Â* But you'd have to somehow spray it
all over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm
not suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water
the garden etc.

I believe it is used to treat anaemia, so certainly not toxic in small
doses :-)Â* If watering the garden with it, note that if sufficiently
concentrated, it will tend to noticeably iron stain light paving stones
and similar things.

As an aside, I had heard Copper Sulphate also worked and had assumed the
copper wire trick was a variation on that- possibly due to a reaction
with sulphides in rain but hadn't looked into further.

Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 12:20:42 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 24/12/2019 11:48, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very
rough and are like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and ******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn
chunks of moss have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the
copper wire takes time to work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss. It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours. But you'd have to somehow spray it
all over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm
not suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water
the garden etc.

I believe it is used to treat anaemia, so certainly not toxic in small
doses :-) If watering the garden with it, note that if sufficiently
concentrated, it will tend to noticeably iron stain light paving stones
and similar things.

As an aside, I had heard Copper Sulphate also worked and had assumed the
copper wire trick was a variation on that- possibly due to a reaction
with sulphides in rain but hadn't looked into further.

Is there as much sulphur in the air as there used to be ? Haven't heard
about acid rain for a while ...
I expect it is the copper ions in solution that are important, not the
sulphate. So whater the corrosion process, perhaps involving water,
oxygen and CO2, some copper will diffuse about the tiles when damp.


--

Roger Hayter

On 24/12/2019 11:33, Brian Reay wrote:
What I'm about to say isn't intended to be critical of the doctors etc
who prescribe drugs etc.

I've noticed on a couple of occasions, there is an element of 'try this
first, it generally works'. If it doesn't, they work down a list, based
on a mix of collective and personal experience until, hopefully, they
find a drug, or combination, that either works or at least helps.

That may sound like they are fubbling in the dark but I see it another
way. Firstly, our (as in the collective of human knowledge)
understanding of how bodies work etc is anything but complete and
different people, for a variety of reasons, react in different ways, are
sensitive to certain drugs, conditions, etc.Â* A doctor, faced with
someone presenting a set of symptoms, perhaps verbally, has to make his
best assessment on a way forward - tests may be available to help etc.-
but, whatever the dataset he has it will never be complete or perfect.


I see it ion yet another way.

teh docor foillows an algorithim liek this
1/. Triage. Will he lose his license if he doenst immediately pack you
off to A & E - when I had what were probably kidney stpones, but could
have been either very serious kidney stones or worse, thats what they did.

2/. How many possible causes can be eliminataed by blood tests?
These are not so expensive and dont take up his time.

3/.Giove you arer still there, and he hasnt got time to waste going inm
in depth, and with 3-4 likely comeon causes, shott for most lik;ley
witha drug firts, if it fails shoot fpor No 2 and so on. Its very
efficient use of his tme, which is short, although incredibly wasteful
of NHS money which is in bountiful supply.


Sometimes the 'holes' in the data won't make a difference in real terms,
in others they will result in side effects, the treatment not working,
or even something more serious.

Provided the Doctor has made the best (for some definition of best)
decision - perhaps what most others would have done- then they can't
really be blamed.

That is very big with doctors.


I'm not naive enough to suggest there aren't incompetent doctors - some
cases that are reported are quite frightening- but others, where doctors
have been, in my view, incorrectly blamed are due to either wider issues
or people not accepting that our (ie the collective knowledge referred
to above) understanding of the human body is anything but complete.

A prime example is the female doctor who was pilloried following the
death of a child. Many of her colleagues rightly in my view pointed out,
in the same position, they could well have acted as she did. The problem
there was a systematic failure for which she carried the can.
In te case of a friend of mine, her son died and was partially
resuscitated - about half a brain was left - in A & E waiting to be
seen. (he lived another 12 years or so with about the same consciousness
and behaviour as a very unruly terrier).

The high court held that, since he had not been seen, no one could be
held negligent.


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:22:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 24/12/2019 11:33, Brian Reay wrote:
What I'm about to say isn't intended to be critical of the doctors etc
who prescribe drugs etc.

I've noticed on a couple of occasions, there is an element of 'try this
first, it generally works'. If it doesn't, they work down a list, based
on a mix of collective and personal experience until, hopefully, they
find a drug, or combination, that either works or at least helps.

That may sound like they are fubbling in the dark but I see it another
way. Firstly, our (as in the collective of human knowledge)
understanding of how bodies work etc is anything but complete and
different people, for a variety of reasons, react in different ways,
are sensitive to certain drugs, conditions, etc. A doctor, faced with
someone presenting a set of symptoms, perhaps verbally, has to make his
best assessment on a way forward - tests may be available to help etc.-
but, whatever the dataset he has it will never be complete or perfect.


I see it ion yet another way.

teh docor foillows an algorithim liek this 1/. Triage. Will he lose his
license if he doenst immediately pack you off to A & E - when I had what
were probably kidney stpones, but could have been either very serious
kidney stones or worse, thats what they did.

2/. How many possible causes can be eliminataed by blood tests?
These are not so expensive and dont take up his time.

3/.Giove you arer still there, and he hasnt got time to waste going inm
in depth, and with 3-4 likely comeon causes, shott for most lik;ley
witha drug firts, if it fails shoot fpor No 2 and so on. Its very
efficient use of his tme, which is short, although incredibly wasteful
of NHS money which is in bountiful supply.


Sometimes the 'holes' in the data won't make a difference in real
terms,
in others they will result in side effects, the treatment not working,
or even something more serious.

Provided the Doctor has made the best (for some definition of best)
decision - perhaps what most others would have done- then they can't
really be blamed.

That is very big with doctors.


I'm not naive enough to suggest there aren't incompetent doctors - some
cases that are reported are quite frightening- but others, where
doctors have been, in my view, incorrectly blamed are due to either
wider issues or people not accepting that our (ie the collective
knowledge referred to above) understanding of the human body is
anything but complete.

A prime example is the female doctor who was pilloried following the
death of a child. Many of her colleagues rightly in my view pointed
out,
in the same position, they could well have acted as she did. The
problem there was a systematic failure for which she carried the can.
In te case of a friend of mine, her son died and was partially
resuscitated - about half a brain was left - in A & E waiting to be
seen. (he lived another 12 years or so with about the same consciousness
and behaviour as a very unruly terrier).

The high court held that, since he had not been seen, no one could be
held negligent.

A family friends sister died 15 years ago. She was 35, and went to A&E
several times with an increasingly agonising abdominal pain. Each time
she was told it was constipation and given stronger laxatives. Until she
was blue-lit in. Turned out to be an ectopic pregnancy and she died as
she was being admitted.

Now I am not a doctor - nor a surgeon. I don't even have a St. Johns
ambulance badge (although I do have a pool lifeguard qualification). But
even I know that "woman of child bearing age" = "check for pregnancy
whatever the patient says". But it seems several *doctors* had a
collective brain fart and forgot what should be day one stuff.

Some 20 years ago, I suddenely became unable to put any weight on my right
foot without suffering severe pain. Two local GPs were unable to help, but
since I had, then, private medical insurance referred me to a private
surgeon. I had an MRI scan which revealed nothing, so I had a radiation
scan where the staff said " that doesn't look right", but the surgeon
ddin't know what to make of it. My sister-in-law who was a physiotherapist
was visting and saw that I was limping. "Oh, every physio knows that
problem." And gave me some exercises to improve the circulation in my
ankle. Sadly, doctors don't know everything

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 23:27:09 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the
trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a
word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients
any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want
us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive.
You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially from
it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their patented
product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs &
processes.


NT

It's true about bringing a drug to market. But if you are testing a
physical intervention which is a normal activity or an effect of diet
involving normal food you don't need toxicity and safety trials.
Neither do you have to complete prescribed safety and efficacy studies.
So if there is convincing anecdotal evidence a charity or a university
department may fund a study on relatively small numbers to see if a
positive effect can be identified. For diet, observational studies,
with all their disadvantages of proper control and confounding, may be
preferred to interventions as, unfortunately, few people will stick to a
dietary restriction or addition for more than a few days even if they
promise to.

In the area of medicine in which I am most involved, some
of the absolute basics have never been properly assessed.

In the 1950s synthetic medicines became available and,
over the next twenty or so years, the former animal-based
medicines were effectively phased out. Yet there is not one
single research paper which showed this to be safe, effective
or desirable. (Except on grounds of cost.)

Dont believe that. Name the meds. That is
nothing like what happened with aspirin alone.

Even now, there is next to no direct comparison

Thats wrong too. There have been plenty of comparisons
between meds which are now off patent with what is
claimed to be a better drug for a particular condition.

and the very few bits of research seem to show some
benefit to the animal-based medicine but are dismissed
as only the patients' opinion - nothing really measurable.

Thats wrong too with aspirin alone.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:33:43 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

I've noticed on a couple of occasions, there is an element of 'try this
first, it generally works'. If it doesn't, they work down a list, based
on a mix of collective and personal experience until, hopefully, they
find a drug, or combination, that either works or at least helps.

[I reckon] a relatively well read and scientifically minded person could
pretty much do a GPs job .... 80% of which is pretty much "take two
paracetamol and come back in a weeks time" sort of stuff. The other fifth
(admittedly the much higher risk stuff) being knowing when to pass the
patient onto a specialist. And (possibly more importantly) how quickly.

That being said, it's rare (but not unheard of) for a patient to attend
their GP about a condition which develops into an emergency while they
are there.

And rather less rare that the patient presents with
symptoms that need very immediate treatment
for the best outcome, most obviously with strokes.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 12:20:42 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 24/12/2019 11:48, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 24/12/2019 10:27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very
rough and are like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and ******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn
chunks of moss have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the
copper wire takes time to work?


Ferrous Sulphate is my favourite for moss. It is dead (but black and
unsightly) within a few hours. But you'd have to somehow spray it
all over the roof.


Do you know if it is toxic when it gets into the soak away etc? I'm
not suggesting it is- I collect water from part of our roof to water
the garden etc.

I believe it is used to treat anaemia, so certainly not toxic in small
doses :-) If watering the garden with it, note that if sufficiently
concentrated, it will tend to noticeably iron stain light paving stones
and similar things.

As an aside, I had heard Copper Sulphate also worked and had assumed the
copper wire trick was a variation on that- possibly due to a reaction
with sulphides in rain but hadn't looked into further.

Is there as much sulphur in the air as there used to be ?

No there isn't.

Haven't heard about acid rain for a while ...

And thats the reason.

On 23/12/2019 00:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/12/2019 21:10:08, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 22/12/2019 19:34:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:28:28 -0000, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote:

Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about
5 years ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very
rough and are like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge
kills moss, so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the
roof, never mind and ******** to it, I'm not going up there again.
Since Autumn chunks of moss have been falling down almost every
day. Maybe the copper wire takes time to work?

The best thing I've found for killing moss is benzalkonium chloride.
It's the active ingrident in most patio and decking treatments, but
is available much more cheaply as "BAC 50".

I buy 5 litres each year, which is enough to treat my drive at
patio. I've not tried it on my roof yet though.

No moss on the drive. I'm too bloody old to climb back on that roof
again.

A decent spray might get far enough

Maybe next year if I'm still around. I would have thought the sun
would have
killed the moss. The north facing roof is fine.

They say the good die young, you should live forever! :-)


Too long for my liking.


**** the Christmas Cheer.
--
Adam

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:22:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 24/12/2019 11:33, Brian Reay wrote:
What I'm about to say isn't intended to be critical of the doctors etc
who prescribe drugs etc.

I've noticed on a couple of occasions, there is an element of 'try
this
first, it generally works'. If it doesn't, they work down a list,
based
on a mix of collective and personal experience until, hopefully, they
find a drug, or combination, that either works or at least helps.

That may sound like they are fubbling in the dark but I see it another
way. Firstly, our (as in the collective of human knowledge)
understanding of how bodies work etc is anything but complete and
different people, for a variety of reasons, react in different ways,
are sensitive to certain drugs, conditions, etc. A doctor, faced with
someone presenting a set of symptoms, perhaps verbally, has to make
his
best assessment on a way forward - tests may be available to help
etc.-
but, whatever the dataset he has it will never be complete or perfect.


I see it ion yet another way.

teh docor foillows an algorithim liek this 1/. Triage. Will he lose his
license if he doenst immediately pack you off to A & E - when I had
what
were probably kidney stpones, but could have been either very serious
kidney stones or worse, thats what they did.

2/. How many possible causes can be eliminataed by blood tests?
These are not so expensive and dont take up his time.

3/.Giove you arer still there, and he hasnt got time to waste going inm
in depth, and with 3-4 likely comeon causes, shott for most lik;ley
witha drug firts, if it fails shoot fpor No 2 and so on. Its very
efficient use of his tme, which is short, although incredibly wasteful
of NHS money which is in bountiful supply.


Sometimes the 'holes' in the data won't make a difference in real
terms,
in others they will result in side effects, the treatment not working,
or even something more serious.

Provided the Doctor has made the best (for some definition of best)
decision - perhaps what most others would have done- then they can't
really be blamed.

That is very big with doctors.


I'm not naive enough to suggest there aren't incompetent doctors -
some
cases that are reported are quite frightening- but others, where
doctors have been, in my view, incorrectly blamed are due to either
wider issues or people not accepting that our (ie the collective
knowledge referred to above) understanding of the human body is
anything but complete.

A prime example is the female doctor who was pilloried following the
death of a child. Many of her colleagues rightly in my view pointed
out,
in the same position, they could well have acted as she did. The
problem there was a systematic failure for which she carried the can.
In te case of a friend of mine, her son died and was partially
resuscitated - about half a brain was left - in A & E waiting to be
seen. (he lived another 12 years or so with about the same
consciousness
and behaviour as a very unruly terrier).

The high court held that, since he had not been seen, no one could be
held negligent.

A family friends sister died 15 years ago. She was 35, and went to A&E
several times with an increasingly agonising abdominal pain. Each time
she was told it was constipation and given stronger laxatives. Until she
was blue-lit in. Turned out to be an ectopic pregnancy and she died as
she was being admitted.

Now I am not a doctor - nor a surgeon. I don't even have a St. Johns
ambulance badge (although I do have a pool lifeguard qualification). But
even I know that "woman of child bearing age" = "check for pregnancy
whatever the patient says". But it seems several *doctors* had a
collective brain fart and forgot what should be day one stuff.

Some 20 years ago, I suddenely became unable to put any weight on my right
foot without suffering severe pain. Two local GPs were unable to help, but
since I had, then, private medical insurance referred me to a private
surgeon. I had an MRI scan which revealed nothing, so I had a radiation
scan where the staff said " that doesn't look right", but the surgeon
ddin't know what to make of it. My sister-in-law who was a physiotherapist
was visting and saw that I was limping. "Oh, every physio knows that
problem." And gave me some exercises to improve the circulation in my
ankle. Sadly, doctors don't know everything

Wonder why that problem doesn't get thru to some doctors.

I do get that effect a bit, usually in summer, but not often
enough to have ever seen anyone about it. It foes away
by itself in an hour or so. Doesn't stop me walking around,
just noticeably painful for a bit. Presumably it's the increased
circulation that fixes it.

Did she say why you get that result from less than ideal circulation ?

Does it have a formal name ?

On Tuesday, 24 December 2019 17:45:13 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 23:27:09 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the
trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a
word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients
any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want
us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive.
You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially from
it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their patented
product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs &
processes.


NT

It's true about bringing a drug to market. But if you are testing a
physical intervention which is a normal activity or an effect of diet
involving normal food you don't need toxicity and safety trials.
Neither do you have to complete prescribed safety and efficacy studies..
So if there is convincing anecdotal evidence a charity or a university
department may fund a study on relatively small numbers to see if a
positive effect can be identified. For diet, observational studies,
with all their disadvantages of proper control and confounding, may be
preferred to interventions as, unfortunately, few people will stick to a
dietary restriction or addition for more than a few days even if they
promise to.

In the area of medicine in which I am most involved, some
of the absolute basics have never been properly assessed.

In the 1950s synthetic medicines became available and,
over the next twenty or so years, the former animal-based
medicines were effectively phased out. Yet there is not one
single research paper which showed this to be safe, effective
or desirable. (Except on grounds of cost.)

Dont believe that. Name the meds. That is
nothing like what happened with aspirin alone.

Even now, there is next to no direct comparison

Thats wrong too. There have been plenty of comparisons
between meds which are now off patent with what is
claimed to be a better drug for a particular condition.

and the very few bits of research seem to show some
benefit to the animal-based medicine but are dismissed
as only the patients' opinion - nothing really measurable.

Thats wrong too with aspirin alone.

The medicine I referred to was never patented in the UK nor in the USA. (And I doubt it was elsewhwere.)

You are a gob****e - you claim what I wrote is wrong yet you have no bleeding idea whatsoever what medicine I am referring to.

Why the hell did you refer toi apsirin? What has it got to do with what I am referring to?

"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 24 December 2019 17:45:13 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 23:27:09 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the
trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company
should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet)
is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness
in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe
a
word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell
patients
any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you
want
us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be useful are expensive.
You'll only get the funds if someone stands to benefit financially
from
it. That only happens when the study conclusion promotes their
patented
product. Hence studies mostly don't get done for unpatentable drugs
&
processes.


NT

It's true about bringing a drug to market. But if you are testing a
physical intervention which is a normal activity or an effect of diet
involving normal food you don't need toxicity and safety trials.
Neither do you have to complete prescribed safety and efficacy
studies.
So if there is convincing anecdotal evidence a charity or a university
department may fund a study on relatively small numbers to see if a
positive effect can be identified. For diet, observational studies,
with all their disadvantages of proper control and confounding, may be
preferred to interventions as, unfortunately, few people will stick to
a
dietary restriction or addition for more than a few days even if they
promise to.

In the area of medicine in which I am most involved, some
of the absolute basics have never been properly assessed.

In the 1950s synthetic medicines became available and,
over the next twenty or so years, the former animal-based
medicines were effectively phased out. Yet there is not one
single research paper which showed this to be safe, effective
or desirable. (Except on grounds of cost.)

Dont believe that. Name the meds. That is
nothing like what happened with aspirin alone.

Even now, there is next to no direct comparison

Thats wrong too. There have been plenty of comparisons
between meds which are now off patent with what is
claimed to be a better drug for a particular condition.

and the very few bits of research seem to show some
benefit to the animal-based medicine but are dismissed
as only the patients' opinion - nothing really measurable.

Thats wrong too with aspirin alone.

The medicine I referred to was never patented in the
UK nor in the USA. (And I doubt it was elsewhwere.)

Irrelevant to your stupid claim that no one
ever did any trials to see if it worked as well
as new drugs. Since you wont even name it,
bet thats because they have been done.

You are a gob****e

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

you claim what I wrote is wrong

I know it is, because there have been plenty of trials of stuff
like aspirin against other more recent synthetic alternatives.

yet you have no bleeding idea whatsoever
what medicine I am referring to.

Then you wont have any difficulty naming it.

Why the hell did you refer toi apsirin?

Because that is a classic example of something
that was widely available in the 1950s and there
have been extensive trials comparing it with the
synthetics that showed up later.

What has it got to do with what I am referring to?

See above.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:53:14 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

I recall an old church somewhere with a glorious green copper roof on
its spire. We stopped and admired it. Another tourist commented that
they should polish it.

Why do copper roofs go green? Copper pipe or a hot water cyclinder
left outside just goes a dark brown.

However the bits of overhead mains incomer open wire copper have gone
greenish. The engineers replacing the open wire incomer with coaxial
witter something about chrome. Cooper Chromate is green so presumably
"roofing copper" is some copper/chrome alloy that oxidises to green.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:53:14 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

I recall an old church somewhere with a glorious green copper roof on
its spire. We stopped and admired it. Another tourist commented that
they should polish it.

Why do copper roofs go green?

Copper sulphate from acid rain.

Copper pipe or a hot water cyclinder
left outside just goes a dark brown.

Not always. I have got some with
green marks, likely from brick acid.

However the bits of overhead mains incomer open wire copper have gone
greenish. The engineers replacing the open wire incomer with coaxial
witter something about chrome. Cooper Chromate is green so presumably
"roofing copper" is some copper/chrome alloy that oxidises to green.

Its much more complicated than that and I was a chemist once.

On Wednesday, 25 December 2019 15:55:55 UTC, % wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:53:14 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

I recall an old church somewhere with a glorious green copper roof on
its spire. We stopped and admired it. Another tourist commented that
they should polish it.

Why do copper roofs go green?

Copper sulphate from acid rain.

Copper pipe or a hot water cyclinder
left outside just goes a dark brown.

Not always. I have got some with
green marks, likely from brick acid.

However the bits of overhead mains incomer open wire copper have gone
greenish. The engineers replacing the open wire incomer with coaxial
witter something about chrome. Cooper Chromate is green so presumably
"roofing copper" is some copper/chrome alloy that oxidises to green.

Its much more complicated than that and I was a chemist once.

Surely CuSO4 would wash away almost as soon as formed.


NT

On 25/12/2019 11:37, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:53:14 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

I recall an old church somewhere with a glorious green copper roof on
its spire. We stopped and admired it. Another tourist commented that
they should polish it.

Why do copper roofs go green? Copper pipe or a hot water cyclinder
left outside just goes a dark brown.

However the bits of overhead mains incomer open wire copper have gone
greenish. The engineers replacing the open wire incomer with coaxial
witter something about chrome. Cooper Chromate is green so presumably
"roofing copper" is some copper/chrome alloy that oxidises to green.



It is Verdigris.

I confess, I thought it was one of the oxides of copper but, having
Googled to check before posting, it is more complex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdigris

The reference mentions Acetic Acid but I'm not aware of that being in
the atmosphere so, I assume, it is some other combination of acids
which gives the effect.

Certainly other copper items go green- copper wire etc. Coax (as found
in TV downleads etc) sometimes goes either green or black if moisture
gets in.

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 14:07:17 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 25/12/2019 11:37, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:53:14 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

I recall an old church somewhere with a glorious green copper roof
on its spire. We stopped and admired it. Another tourist commented
that they should polish it.

Why do copper roofs go green? Copper pipe or a hot water cyclinder
left outside just goes a dark brown.

However the bits of overhead mains incomer open wire copper have
gone greenish. The engineers replacing the open wire incomer with
coaxial witter something about chrome. Cooper Chromate is green so
presumably "roofing copper" is some copper/chrome alloy that
oxidises to green.



It is Verdigris.

I confess, I thought it was one of the oxides of copper but, having
Googled to check before posting, it is more complex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdigris

The reference mentions Acetic Acid but I'm not aware of that being in
the atmosphere

except in the vicinity of a fish-and-chip shop!

so, I assume, it is some other combination of acids
which gives the effect.

Carbonic acid, H2CO3, i.e. water plus that awful stuff, CO2. For
example, 2Cu + O2 + CO2 + H2O - Cu2CO3(OH)2, basic copper carbonate
or verdigris.

I expect one of the consequences of green energy will be that copper
roofs etc will no longer go green!

Certainly other copper items go green- copper wire etc. Coax (as
found in TV downleads etc) sometimes goes either green or black if
moisture gets in.

The moss is still falling off the roof and that will do me.

On 23/12/2019 20:49, ARW wrote:
On 23/12/2019 17:01, Andrew wrote:
On 23/12/2019 05:10, alan_m wrote:
On 22/12/2019 17:28, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bungalow, back end south facing. I was unhappily on the roof about 5
years
ago scrapping and brushing the moss off. The tiles are very rough
and are
like steel.
I'd read that stringing a length of copper wire over the ridge kills
moss,
so I did it. The moss returned on the back end of the roof, never
mind and
******** to it, I'm not going up there again. Since Autumn chunks of
moss
have been falling down almost every day. Maybe the copper wire takes
time to
work?



Has the copper wire gone green?


That takes ages, and without coal fires maybe never.

The new swimming pool in Worthing is clad with copper
(it's right on the seafront). Started off nice shiny
copper but went dark, dull brown after a couple of months
and that is how it has stayed.

That could be due to ****.

I recall hearing once about a University that had a copper roof that
wouldn't go green. So they piped the urinals on to it...

Andy

On 12/27/2019 5:20 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:

I recall hearing once about a University that had a copper roof that
wouldn't go green. So they piped the urinals on to it...

An architect I knew many years ago, said that urine was often used for
greening copper roofs.