Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 05 May 2005 15:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By el nino Has anyone read Benjamin Hunts interesting article in SHP this month entitled "who's the daddy?" El Nino would like to know what the group think of the comment that "a hamburger is no less bad for you than a carrot". Last time I looked Mr.Carrot had no fat, salt, E numbers, additional injected water, or growth hormones? My rabbit is not impressed with this new diet. I gave him one of those kids meals last night and he ignored the burger and ate the box. El Nino
Admin  
#2 Posted : 05 May 2005 15:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Mr Hunts article is typical tabloid style tosh, if you ask me; he and I certainly have different understandings of the nature of hamburgers! What he seems to ignore is that people never make free choices in a self-determined vacuum, they are subject to a number of different influences, of which an extremely powerful one is advertising. If tobacco companies spent years advertising their products with phrases like 'fresh as a mountain stream' (and no, I'm not making that up) then they deserve to pay for wilfully misleading people. There's a lot of daily mail headline stuff about compensation cultures in his article which also indicates the particular axe he has to grind, but as an employee of an organisation struggling with inherited cultural problems I find his comments on stress and bullying pie-in the sky and less than helpful. I seem to be quite cross about it all, really, John
Admin  
#3 Posted : 05 May 2005 15:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By fats van den raad Just as an aside.. For anyone that may be in danger of being mislead by the burger fraternity, there is a documovie "Supersize Me" about a person who lived for a month on the fare provided by a certain large american burger joint. This cured me from my addiction!!!!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 05 May 2005 15:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By el nino Some good points, John. The main difference between the Daily Mail and SHP is that you get the odd free CD with the Daily Mail ( not true of course - but too many more articles along these lines and I may be closer to the truth ). The last sentence in the article put the cherry on the cake as far I was concerned. Mr.Hunt mentions "genuine accidents" - I'd love to know what that means! El Nino
Admin  
#5 Posted : 05 May 2005 15:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By el nino Fats Yeah, cool movie. I was cured for a couple of days myself. El Nino
Admin  
#6 Posted : 05 May 2005 16:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Heather Aston I confess to not having read that far in the SHP until reading this thread. I have now and I would join John on the "cross" side of the fence. There are some bizarre statements in the article - not least the "genuine accident" one picked out above. Um - what's one of those then? I particularly take issue with "Much corporate social responsibility is built on the devaluing of personal responsibility and the assumption that individuals cannot make decisions themselves" What rubbish. Just because a company chooses to address its wider responsibility in the community does not mean it doesn't value its people and want them to make active decisions for themselves. A company is only as good as its people anyway so a collective corporate decision has no value unless the people in that company support the principles and act on them. I also find this chain of thought particularly bizarre - CSR=paternalistic company, which then evolves into authoritarianism, which leads to those in authority ordering people around where H&S is concerned. Huh? Non sequitur or what? I'll stop now and go away and think calm thoughts. I expect the people shouting "trivia" will be along in a minute. Heather
Admin  
#7 Posted : 05 May 2005 19:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Matthews Now heres a twist..... if the burger is from a large outlet brandishing a big yellow 'M', it could indeed contain carrot which was inside the bunny that got minced along with all the other junk that goes into these things, so there may be something in the comment!!! Tongue in cheek of course (and probably the burger actually) Chris
Admin  
#8 Posted : 06 May 2005 12:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lord Lucan I agree with a lot of what has been said, but it is good that the comments in the article are kept in context, eg "a hamburger is no less bad for you than a carrot... the problem arises when you just eat hamburgers or carrots....." He does end with "Individuals must take resposnsibility sometimes" Which is I beleive is his main gripe. For instance, it appears that in recent years individuals who are sadly injured and/or killed whilst being in the armed forces look to "blame" their respective governments and more recently individual leaders. A point that is oftern quickly seized upon by the frenzied media. Well....... when you sign up you should know that the chances of armed combat are a lot higher than being a Chef, unless of course you're in Hell's Kitchen. Political I know but personal responsibility and accountabiolity is something that is not 'out there' much anymore, too much its your fault, which I think is the main point of the article.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 06 May 2005 14:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By garyh In the original post the sentence "Last time I looked Mr.Carrot had no fat, salt, E numbers, additional injected water, or growth hormones" appeared. Hmmm must have been organic carrots then, no pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers ...........and so on. Also "E numbers" are not always "bad". Sorry, I FORGOT, WE HAVE TO kNOCK "CHEMICALS" AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY!! Obviously I work in the Chemical industry, you know the, one with the fantastic safety record, and massive contribution to underpinning our technologically dependent society, huge balance of payments surplus.....etc Please, let's stay Professional, and not come out with populist anti science statments.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 06 May 2005 15:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Heather Aston "huge balance of payments surplus..." Now I'm not an economist - actually I am a chemist by training (how ironic) but according to this jolly little site http://www.tutor2u.net/e.../balance_of_payments.htm the UK hasn't had a surplus in the "national current account" since 1998. According to the site, in 2004 there was a record surplus in the balance of trade in services of £18.3 billion, but a record deficit in the balance of trade in goods of £57.6 billion. The overall deficit was £26 billion, 2.5% of the national income. I work in manufacturing industry too. :( Heather
Admin  
#11 Posted : 06 May 2005 15:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight not anti-science, just anti bad science, and we didnt' satrt the politics, the whole
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.