Eggs protected from breakage by the use of 'polystyrene helmet'. - Page 3

In article <t57me0187pirn4572fr9sl1jeeq16eqqss@4ax.com>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chapman+usenet-reply@spamcop.net> wrote:
> I thought it was ludicrous. It's OK to smackj them as long
> as you don't injure them - but if you injured them you'd
> be committing an offence anyway. Madness. The whole thing
> is an obvious stitch-up by

Almost all child abuse is currently illegal, and it's not
at all obvious that the illegality has prevented it. I
don't see how lowering the threshold (if that's what this
does, and as you say it probably doesn't anyway) protects
children who are already being illegally abused. Sure, I
think that hitting children is overall a bad thing, but to
claim that this legislation would have kept Victoria
Climbie alive --- as is being implied --- is just
laughable.

ian

Dave Kahn wrote:
> Kids want to explore the magic kingdom piled high with
> interesting shiny things.

I thought that was women.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer wrote:
> Dave Kahn wrote:
>> Kids want to explore the magic kingdom piled high with
>> interesting shiny things.
>
> I thought that was women.

Depends on the Magic Kingdom, and hence the Shiny Things. In
a land far, far away[1] ruled over by the Dark Lord Darth
Ben, there are many, many Shiny Things, and Little[2] Boys
like to explore there...

Pete.

[1] well, Glasgow is quite far
[2] okay, "Big"
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> writes:

>Depends on the Magic Kingdom, and hence the Shiny Things.
>In a land far, far away[1] ruled over by the Dark Lord
>Darth Ben, there are many, many Shiny Things, and Little[2]
>Boys like to explore there...

And then the evil witch took his magic plastic wand away...?

Roos

Helen Deborah Vecht helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk opined the
following...
> Yeah, Waitrose also do cookery classes for kids...

Far more practical. They wont learn any of that in
school you know!

Fruit pie:

Please bring with you for the next class;

2 x cooking apple. 1 x small bag of raisins. 1 x block of
ready roll pastry.

"How to make fruit pie" was actually "how to peel an apple".

Jon

Danny Colyer <danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote in news:cchd3i$gg5$1
@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:

>> Kids want to explore the magic kingdom piled high with
>> interesting shiny things.
>
> I thought that was women.
>

What? Women are piled high with interesting shiney things? I
must know some strange women then, they're interesting but
not shiney.

Graeme

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:35:14 GMT, "burt"
<burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote (more or less): ...
>I have tried complaining, writing to programmes, but the
>BBC continues to act in an extremely biassed manner,
>practically putting out propaganda for BHIT. Has anyone
>ever got a response from them?

I have not received a reply from them. I have only
complained once so far, tho', about one of their one-sided
BBCi articles.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2l264eF7femfU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> >> Remember, a broken helmet /has not worked as designed/.
> >> They are /not/ supposed to break.
>
> > But is it not possible that it'll break once it has
> > absorbed as much as it can? It may have performed
> > perfectly up to its specification before breaking, and
> > absorbed useful energy.
>

erm.... surely a helmet's designed to prevent serious head
injury.... In which case, break or not, it worked. I don't
think there's any doubt that if hadn't had a helmet he would
be in a pretty bad way right now (5 years on). As far as I know he
landed square on his head.

And I don't tend to do jumps. Not my kind of thing.

Nick

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:44:54 +0100, "Nick Drew" <spam@nickdrew.com>
wrote (more or less):

>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
>wrote in message news:2l264eF7femfU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> >> Remember, a broken helmet /has not worked as
>> >> designed/. They are /not/ supposed to break.
>>
>> > But is it not possible that it'll break once it has
>> > absorbed as much as it can? It may have performed
>> > perfectly up to its specification before breaking, and
>> > absorbed useful energy.
>>
>
>erm.... surely a helmet's designed to prevent serious head
>injury....

No - it's designed to prevent minor injury. The sort that
can occur by falling off a stationary bike onto flat ground.

>In which case, break or not, it worked.

Using the same reasoning, my lucky rabbit's foot has
protected me from tiger attack...

> I don't think there's any doubt that if hadn't had a
> helmet he would be in a pretty bad way right now (5 years
> on). As far as I know he landed square on his head.
>
>And I don't tend to do jumps. Not my kind of thing.
>
>Nick
>

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

"Nick Drew" <spam@nickdrew.com> wrote in message news:<2lf1c3Fbjt3eU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
> wrote in message news:2l264eF7femfU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> > >> Remember, a broken helmet /has not worked as
> > >> designed/. They are /not/ supposed to break.

> erm.... surely a helmet's designed to prevent serious head
> injury.... In which case, break or not, it worked. I don't
> think there's any doubt that if hadn't had a helmet he
> would be in a pretty bad way right now (5 years on). As far as I know
> he landed square on his head.

It seems he was in a pretty bad way as it was. It sounds as
though the helmet did nothing other than fall apart.

--
Dave...

I was thrown out of there during my freshman year, for
cheating on my metaphysics final. You know, I looked within
the soul of the boy sitting next to me. — Woody Allen

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:44:54 +0100, "Nick Drew" <spam@nickdrew.com>
wrote in message <2lf1c3Fbjt3eU1@uni-berlin.de>:

>erm.... surely a helmet's designed to prevent serious head
>injury.... In which case, break or not, it worked.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The number of "helmet saved my
life" anecdotes vasty exceeds the number of cyclists killed
before helmets.

I don't think there's any doubt that if
>hadn't had a helmet he would be in a pretty bad way right
>now (5 years on). As far as I know he landed square on his head.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <2lf1c3Fbjt3eU1@uni-berlin.de>, Nick Drew
> ('spam@nickdrew.com') wrote:
>
>>
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
>> wrote in message news:2l264eF7femfU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Remember, a broken helmet /has not worked as
>>> >> designed/. They are /not/ supposed to break.
>>>
>>> > But is it not possible that it'll break once it has
>>> > absorbed as much as it can? It may have performed
>>> > perfectly up to its specification before breaking, and
>>> > absorbed useful energy.
>>
>> erm.... surely a helmet's designed to prevent serious
>> head injury.... In which case, break or not, it worked.
>
> Logical error. The helmet only 'worked' if there would
> have been an injury without it. Since in breaking it
> absorbs virtually none of the shock energy, I think it's
> probable that he wouldn't have been hurt very much anyway.

I don't understand this. The helmet wouldn't have broken if
it hadn't absorbed some energy, energy that would otherwise
had to have done something else like, perhaps, injuring the
wearer. I guess the helmet only has to dissipate the energy
that would otherwise have gone into the head so that it
falls below the threshold value for causing injury.

> I can recall several people going over the bars and
> landing on their heads when I was a kid; all of them were
> fine the day after. And no-one wore helmets then.

This is hardly scientific evidence. I think we can all
recall many instances of people having close shaves in all
sorts of situations. (Bike crashes, car crashes, horse
falls, falls off ladders etc.) It may well be the case that
in many accidents the conditions fail to compound themselves
in such a way as to make them fatal (or even serious) and
people escape relatively unscathed. However, this does not
negate the fact that accidents do occur in which people do
get killed (or seriously injured) and their death or serious
injury may have been prevented by them taking suitable
precautions. How many people use power tools without eye
protection? Fortunately you don't see many people with
injured eyes unless, probably, you're an eye specialist. I
know a chemist who is blind in one eye because he didn't
wear eye protection. For years, most people didn't routinely
wear seat belts in cars. Most of them didn't die as a result
but isn't it now generally accepted that seat belt save
lives? Just because there might be a large number of 'near
misses' in relation to the number of 'hits' it doesn't
necessarily mean that it's not sensible to take precautions
against the possible consequences of the 'hits'.
>
> Heads are stronger (and helmets weaker) than you think.

I think this is very true but it isn't a reason not to
wear a helmet.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "A modest little person,
with much to be modest about."- Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

In article <c1x2tfeo94ca.qbmgmrz6mib2.dlg@40tude.net>,
herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk says...
> I don't understand this. The helmet wouldn't have broken
> if it hadn't absorbed some energy, energy that would
> otherwise had to have done something else like, perhaps,
> injuring the wearer.

See Guy's example experiment as to why a broken helmet did
not absorb the same energy as a cracked helmet.

> I guess the helmet only has to dissipate the energy that
> would otherwise have gone into the head so that it falls
> below the threshold value for causing injury.

True, but they are frequently incapable of this. What should
happen is that the energy should be used to permanently
deform as much of the foam as possible. If the foam has
cracked, it would suggest that the energy concentrated down
a line so the force will still be channeled into a small
area of the skull.

> > I can recall several people going over the bars and
> > landing on their heads when I was a kid; all of them
> > were fine the day after. And no-one wore helmets then.
>
> This is hardly scientific evidence. I think we can all
> recall many instances of people having close shaves in all
> sorts of situations. (Bike crashes, car crashes, horse
> falls, falls off ladders etc.) It may well be the case
> that in many accidents the conditions fail to compound
> themselves in such a way as to make them fatal (or even
> serious) and people escape relatively unscathed.

Landing on your head does not count as a "close shave"
in my book.

> However, this does not negate the fact that accidents do
> occur in which people do get killed (or seriously injured)
> and their death or serious injury may have been prevented
> by them taking suitable precautions. How many people use
> power tools without eye protection? Fortunately you don't
> see many people with injured eyes unless, probably, you're
> an eye specialist. I know a chemist who is blind in one
> eye because he didn't wear eye protection. For years, most
> people didn't routinely wear seat belts in cars. Most of
> them didn't die as a result but isn't it now generally
> accepted that seat belt save lives?

I believe there is a theory of Risk Compensation which
covers this one. The truth is often stranger than fiction.

> Just because there might be a large number of 'near
> misses' in relation to the number of 'hits' it
> doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sensible to
> take precautions against the possible consequences of
> the 'hits'.

It's more sensible to take precautions against the possible
occurence of the hits, than to try to pre-emptively deal
with the consequences. Does it make more sense to wear a
helmet, or change your riding style to reduce the likelihood
of being in an 'accident'?

> > Heads are stronger (and helmets weaker) than you think.
>
> I think this is very true but it isn't a reason not to
> wear a helmet.

No but there are others.

Jon

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:00:45 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk> wrote (more or less):

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> in message <2lf1c3Fbjt3eU1@uni-berlin.de>, Nick Drew
>> ('spam@nickdrew.com') wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote in message news:2l264eF7femfU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Remember, a broken helmet /has not worked as
>>>> >> designed/. They are /not/ supposed to break.
>>>>
>>>> > But is it not possible that it'll break once it has
>>>> > absorbed as much as it can? It may have performed
>>>> > perfectly up to its specification before breaking,
>>>> > and absorbed useful energy.
>>>
>>> erm.... surely a helmet's designed to prevent serious
>>> head injury.... In which case, break or not, it worked.
>>
>> Logical error. The helmet only 'worked' if there would
>> have been an injury without it. Since in breaking it
>> absorbs virtually none of the shock energy, I think it's
>> probable that he wouldn't have been hurt very much
>> anyway.
>
>I don't understand this. The helmet wouldn't have broken
>if it hadn't absorbed some energy, energy that would
>otherwise had to have done something else like, perhaps,
>injuring the wearer.

While this is true... you need to remember two things.

Even the highest grade helmet is only designed to absorb
110Joules.

A helmet which breaks only absorbs a few % of its
design load.

i.e. in breaking, a helmet absorbs only a few Joules, rather
than the hundred plus it's capable of absorbing if it
works the way its suposed to.

Even a 110 joules is only sufficient to protect your head
from a fall of head height when cycling at up to 7mph.

So a few joules worth of protection is not much
protection at all.

>I guess the helmet only has to dissipate the energy that
>would otherwise have gone into the head so that it falls
>below the threshold value for causing injury.
>
>> I can recall several people going over the bars and
>> landing on their heads when I was a kid; all of them were
>> fine the day after. And no-one wore helmets then.
>
>This is hardly scientific evidence. I think we can all
>recall many instances of people having close shaves in all
>sorts of situations. (Bike crashes, car crashes, horse
>falls, falls off ladders etc.) It may well be the case that
>in many accidents the conditions fail to compound
>themselves in such a way as to make them fatal (or even
>serious) and people escape relatively unscathed. However,
>this does not negate the fact that accidents do occur in
>which people do get killed (or seriously injured) and their
>death or serious injury may have been prevented by them
>taking suitable precautions. How many people use power
>tools without eye protection? Fortunately you don't see
>many people with injured eyes unless, probably, you're an
>eye specialist. I know a chemist who is blind in one eye
>because he didn't wear eye protection. For years, most
>people didn't routinely wear seat belts in cars. Most of
>them didn't die as a result but isn't it now generally
>accepted that seat belt save lives? Just because there
>might be a large number of 'near misses' in relation to the
>number of 'hits' it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not
>sensible to take precautions against the possible
>consequences of the 'hits'.
>>
>> Heads are stronger (and helmets weaker) than you think.
>
>I think this is very true but it isn't a reason not to wear
>a helmet.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Jon,

Thanks for your detailed reply, which I have read and
digested. I'm not quite sure what point you are making
when you mention risk compensation and I don't think that
your question

> Does it make more sense to wear a helmet, or change your
> riding style to reduce the likelihood of being in an
> 'accident'?

is very helpful. Surely the two things aren't mutually
exclusively? I do both.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He is not only dull
himself, he is the cause of dullness in others." -Samuel
Johnson www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk