Street Lighting

My local council is considering dimming or even switching some of the county’s street lights to save money. A position that I don’t think they have thought through.

Dimming:

All that happens in a simple dimming system is that you exchange lots of light and heat for less light and loads more heat. This defeats the object of saving power.

An ordinary resistor is a piece of material that doesn't conduct electrical current well -- it offers a lot of resistance to moving electrical charge. A variable resistor consists of a piece of resistive material, a stationary contact arm and a moving contact arm.

As the charge works to move through the resistor, energy is lost in the form of heat. When you put a resistor in a series circuit, the resistor's energy consumption causes a voltage drop in the circuit, decreasing the energy available to other loads (the light bulb, for example). Decreased voltage across the light bulb reduces its light output.

The problem with this solution is that you end up using a lot of energy to heat the resistor, which doesn't help you light up the room but still costs you. In addition to be being inefficient, these switches tend to be cumbersome and potentially dangerous, since the variable resistor releases a substantial amount of heat.

TFE note: There are no, dimmers fitted in my area as there was never considered  any justifiable cost.

Switching off:

Apart from the obvious dangers of  the running down of pedestrians on a more regular basis, there may be legal ramifications. Consider the 30 MPH speed limit in towns, villages and cities. There is more than just the signage to consider.

Scenario:

The Beak: “Mr Filthy Engineer. You were stopped for exceeding the 30 MPH speed limit. How do you plead?”

TFE: “Not guilty”.

(Stunned silence in court as everyone rushes out to get popcorn.)

TB: “Please state your reason for your plea as we have the statement from two Officers that you were at the time exceeding the limit”.

TFE: “I didn’t know there was a limit, your honour. I’ve never driven through that area before”.

TB: “Didn’t you see the sign”?

TFE: “Maybe that was when I had a sneezing fit.”

TB: “But didn’t you see the street lights?”

TFE: “There were no street lights”.

TB: “How can you say that? They are clearly visible”.

TFE: “Not when it’s raining, dark, and it’s a cloudy night. AND the bloody things are switched off”.

TB: (Consults clerk) “Case dismissed”.

.

Now to deliver.

\i must stop droning on about deliveries.

Lies, damn lies, and fiddled statistics.

“Science is not always a neutral, disinterested search for knowledge, although it may often seem that way to the outsider. Sometimes the story can be very different.”

This should be required reading for all those rabid anti smokers out there.

How times change.

Smoking and health have been the subject of argument since tobacco was introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century. King James I was a pioneer antismoker. In 1604 he declared that smoking was "a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." But like many a politician since, he decided that taxing tobacco was a more sensible option than banning it.

By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma.

The times they were a changing (Apology to Bob Dylan).

Then we had the Doll and Hill study.

These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer.

But were their study results correct?

Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer."

I’m not going to further plagiarise the document but suggest that smokers and anti smokers both have a read of the article. I think as an antismoker you may be disturbed, if not slightly guilty about your persecution of smokers. I leave you with this:

But the continuation of Hammond’s work, with its demonstrated faulty methodology, was used by the Australian authors to deduce that smoking causes premature death to the extent of 17,800 per year in Australia. Their conclusions should be compared with the results of a survey by the Australian Statistician in 1991 of 22,200 households, chosen at random. This showed "long term conditions", including cancer and heart disease, to be more common in non-smokers than smokers.

Hah.

Where there’s a will there’s an allotment.

My local railway station is about a mile and a quarter from any main habitation and is situated out in the open country. I always thought it a bit strange that all the country lanes in walking distance from the station had double yellow lines on both sides of the road. Go more than a mile and you’ll never see double yellows anywhere.

Anyhoo. The station has a large car park that charges the princely sum of £5.50 per day to catch an expensive train to London. If for instance you commute for 48 weeks of the year it’ll cost you the princely sum of £1,320 to park your motor.

However a local entrepreneur came up with a clever solution to make money and deny it to the owners of the station car park.

The solution was to buy a large field and get planning for allotments. Of course he charges the allotment holders a rent of £500 per year. Rip of, you say. Well, actually no. Because the crux of the matter is that each allotment holder has a dedicated parking space!

It means that if you’re a keen gardener you can save £820 per year.

Mind you, I find it quite strange to see cars leaving the allotments in the evening with the owners dressed in suits. Obviously very up market gardeners.

Lovers

That John Lewis Christmas advert.

The real ending.

Phantom payments?

 

A sense of humour lives on.

Disaster Relief in the Philippines.

Watching the BBC news at six tonight I realised that the Beeb has no idea of the complexities involved, All they seemed to do was wail *Something must be done” & “Won’t someone think of the Cheeeldren”.

Before any relief can be given you need, above all, information of what is required, and where. It’s pointless transporting five tons of rice to a town, and then finding that they have a warehouse full of the stuff and what they really need is the water to cook it.

Then you need to find a way to get it there. We always see pics of military helicopters buzzing around and presume that that is the way to do it. Apart from the fact that the Philippines is unlikely to have a vast armada of serviceable helicopters, they usually can lift very little of use.

In the case of the Philippines the only realistic means is by road and sea. Of course the roads will need to be cleared to enable the trucks to drive down them.

So the armchair wailers at the BEEB should think before they pontificate.

And before anyone sneers and say what right does TFE to comment on these matters? My reply is. Seen it and done it.

A number of years ago I ran a team of 30 tasked with rebuilding essential services on Jamaica after it was hit by a hurricane. I had two tasks whilst I was there. Firstly to put the roof back on the Kingston General Hospital (I remember using my management skills on the Chief Executive at the beginning of that little project. It’s amazing how they suddenly let you know their priorities when you have them against their office wall pinned by a hand round their neck).

The second project was more rewarding. A polio rehabilitation centre for kids out in the hills. On this project we had to re roof it, restore power and water. clear debris and carry out a comprehensive clean up.

So I know a little about disaster relief.

Oh and just as an aside. I was interviewed by five TV and radio stations. Guess who got lost trying to find the rehab centre? Starts with a B.

Responsible citizen

 

Whilst strolling alongside the  River Medway this morning I noticed a Muslim extremist slip from the riverbank and fall into the water.

He was struggling to stay afloat because of all the explosives he was carrying. If he didn't get help he'd surely drown.

Being a responsible citizen, and abiding by the law of the land that requires you to help those in distress, I informed the Police, the Immigration Office and even the Fire Service.

It is now 4 p.m., he has drowned, and none of the authorities have yet responded. I'm starting to think I wasted three stamps.

A pittance of time

It’s that time of year that we honour the fallen. I’m posting this early just so those in times zones different to the UK can appreciate the sentiment.

Personally I feel it’s important to remember those that have fallen in the service of this country, and also those that have fallen to make the world a better place.

If we can’t be bothered to remember and salute them then we will surely lose our humanity.

About the writer of the song

The Taliban and other fundamental butchers are excluded from consideration. May they rot in hell.