Research done by the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council in Norfolk between 1993 and 2006 involving 20,000 people has revealed the startling information that:
Taking exercise, drinking in moderation, eating enough fruit and vegetables and not smoking can add up to 14 years to your life.
This held true regardless of how overweight, or poor people were.
To paraphrase John Cleese - Can we get them on Mastermind? Next contestant, University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council, specialist subject: The bleedin' obvious.
How much did this study cost?
My mother was telling me exactly that in the seventies (except for the exact figure of 14 years) I very much doubt she was the only one - maybe they should have paid her and had the benefit of the information 30 years earlier?
Come to think of it, if they had asked, she would have happily advised them for free, better to have asked me - after she had told me...
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Monday, 7 January 2008
Quote of the day
” You say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?
What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.
Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it?
Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools?
By the able at the expense of the incompetent?
By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?
Money is made - before it can be looted, or mooched - made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.”Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)
PM’s “Brown Bottom” exposed
The other day Gordon Brown said to Andrew Marr on the BBC: "Events come and they go. The question is... are you making the right long-term decisions for the country?"I wonder if old “right long-term decision” man is aware that Gold is at a very long term high right now at $850 an ounce and gold stocks are making new highs?
In 1999 the Gold price was stagnant. Despite being warned that gold prices moved in decades long cycles Gordon Brown, for some insane reason, decided to sell off half the UK’s gold stocks .
He clearly knew it would not meet with universal approval, as he tried to bury the news by timing the release for a Friday afternoon, when most MPs were away from Westminster and news coverage was dominated by the outcome of the elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and English local councils.
He was probably dancing to the tune of the he European Central Bank, which administered the euro - in the hope of joining the euro. The bank had been encouraging countries in the single currency to sell off some of their huge gold reserves, believing gold to be ’a bad investment’ and Gordon viewed it as a ‘barbarous relic’.
Not content with just making an ill advised sale of our gold he decided to dump it by auction, thus telegraphing the sales and helping depress the price and reduce what he could hope to get for it further – clearly demonstrating a lack of a real understanding of the gold market.
Gordon idiotically dumped the gold at a 20-year low in the market - now derisively known as the “Brown Bottom” by dealers.
The 17 auctions only achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275. It handed the professionals the opportunity on a platter to boot down the market and then scoop up the gold cheap at the auctions.
New Labour couldn’t even be straight when they told parliament. The government really intended to sell over than half the country’s gold before 2002- 400 tons, but Patricia Hewitt misleadingly claimed in parliament that:
“The Treasury intends to sell 125 tons of gold, 3% of the total reserves, during 1999-2000, with the Bank of England conducting five auctions on the Treasury’s behalf. Auctions will be held every other month starting in July.”
Since then the price of gold has increased massively. The loss to the taxpayer due to Gordon’s financial incompetence has been calculated at around £3.4 billion, based on dollar, euro and yen bonds.
That might have come in handy to defray some of the costs Gordon has committed the taxpayer to over Northern Rock.
The decision to sell 400 tons of gold is seen in City circles as a financial bungle to rival the Tories’ “Black Wednesday”.
So Gordon the question is not so much... “are you really making the right long-term decisions for the country?” more… “are you even actually capable of making them?”
Friday, 4 January 2008
Conservatives want to be the 'Party of the NHS'
It seems that Dave the Chameleon has aspirations to make the Conservatives the “Party of the NHS“ replacing New-Labour.
Another general fighting the last war.
It is blatantly obvious that New Labour couldn’t manage the NHS to save their lives (or it seems those of the rest of us). What is amazing is that Dave thinks he could do better.
Realistically it is possible he might do a little better, as it would be difficult to be quite as incompetent and clumsy as Gordon & Co, but it needs more than that.
The underlying problem with the NHS is that it is run by the state on a national basis. It will do no good to put a State Quango in charge of it either, that would probably just make it worse and soak up yet more tax.
Health care in this country needs a radical shake up. Maybe the State, if it wants to be involved so desperately, should consider limiting it’s involvement to providing a basic level of health ‘insurance’ and let the medical profession manage the system.
It should get out of the management of health completely - and not institute detailed control through legislation instead.
Something like the systems operating in quite a few European countries such as Germany, Holland and Ireland. They could include coverage for compensation for loss of work due to illness.
Such a system could easily still be ‘free’ at the point of delivery and might even allow people to visit the dentist again.
If a Hospital was failing, then patients could take their custom elsewhere. If a new hospital was needed then it could be built by subscription, or privately. If there was demand it would do well if not then it would close and not waste taxpayer’s money. If people wanted smaller cleaner more local hospitals and the demand was there then they would be successful.
Thursday, 3 January 2008
Quote of the day
” They say that time changes things - but actually you have to change them yourself.”Andy Warhol (1928 - 1987)
Watch this space.
The UK Libertarian Party is setting out it’s stall on the net.
What they say so far looks very encouraging.
Let's hope that they come to the attention of enough of the apparently huge numbers of voters who have lost faith with the existing main parties.
…And let’s hope that those voters haven’t utterly given up on politics.
Reports of Speed limit reductions on the River Thames
According to the Evening Standard and the BBC, they report that the Port of London Authority (PLA) have halved the speed limit on the River Thames from 24 to 12 knots.
This has had the effect of doubling the commute from Greenland Dock to Embankment from 20 minutes at rush hour to 40 minutes.
The ostensible reason? Well the PLA claim to have made it as a ‘precautionary’ measure because of a significant increase in the number of fast vessels that use the Thames.
They are reported as saying: "In recent months new vessels have started operating new services on new routes and leisure operators have introduced tourist-related high-speed trips.
"This measure will help ensure continued high safety standards on the river."
I had understood that what limits there are were applied upstream (west) of Wandsworth Bridge, 4.3 knots (8kph) in the non tidal section and 8 knots in the tidal section of the river - and that downstream (east) of this point, the only requirement was that boats were not allowed to create ‘undue wash’.
Apart from that, what doesn’t quite scan, when you think about it, is the fact that if there was a previous 24 knot limit then surely none of the boats would have exceeded it.
If they had, then logically they could have been prosecuted. What difference does it make what speed they happen to be capable of travelling at, provided they only actually travelled at 24 knots?
If they couldn’t have been prosecuted then what is to hold them to any lower limit?
As for the number of boats – the numbers using the Thames now are nothing in comparison to those of the first half of the 20th century. The river is not exactly crowded.
This has had the effect of doubling the commute from Greenland Dock to Embankment from 20 minutes at rush hour to 40 minutes.
The ostensible reason? Well the PLA claim to have made it as a ‘precautionary’ measure because of a significant increase in the number of fast vessels that use the Thames.
They are reported as saying: "In recent months new vessels have started operating new services on new routes and leisure operators have introduced tourist-related high-speed trips.
"This measure will help ensure continued high safety standards on the river."
I had understood that what limits there are were applied upstream (west) of Wandsworth Bridge, 4.3 knots (8kph) in the non tidal section and 8 knots in the tidal section of the river - and that downstream (east) of this point, the only requirement was that boats were not allowed to create ‘undue wash’.
Apart from that, what doesn’t quite scan, when you think about it, is the fact that if there was a previous 24 knot limit then surely none of the boats would have exceeded it.
If they had, then logically they could have been prosecuted. What difference does it make what speed they happen to be capable of travelling at, provided they only actually travelled at 24 knots?
If they couldn’t have been prosecuted then what is to hold them to any lower limit?
As for the number of boats – the numbers using the Thames now are nothing in comparison to those of the first half of the 20th century. The river is not exactly crowded.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Quote of the day
” The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization.”Mikhail Gorbachev
Is it really a myth that migrant workers do jobs UK workers wont?
According to the Telegraph a new report by Migrationwatch is claiming it is a myth that foreign workers are just doing work which UK workers don’t want, or filling newly-created jobs.
There is a suggestion that a generation of low-skilled British workers risks being ‘trapped’ in unemployment by record immigration.
They express concern that a combination of generous benefits and immigrant labour willing to work for low wages will create "an underclass of discouraged British workers."
A single person under 25, on the minimum wage of £193 pw is just £10 a day better off than if they were on the dole. A married person with two children is £30 pw better off than on the dole.
So what’s all this myth exploding nonsense then? The British worker would appear to be virtually as well off on the dole as doing these jobs. It is not surprising they don’t want to do the jobs. But it is still definitely a matter of them not being willing to do the jobs for the money.
It seems that Frank Field, the former Labour welfare reform minister interprets this as immigrant workers ‘trapping’ British-born people in unemployment, because the higher the level of immigration in an area, the ‘harder’ it is for the unemployed to come off Jobseeker's Allowance.
This is backwards logic at best. The state can hardly blame migrant workers for the fact that it pays such generous dole benefits that, by the time transport costs and the bother of getting up in the morning are taken into account, the recipients are unwilling to do jobs that would probably actually leave them worse off, while the more motivated migrant workers are willing to underbid them for work.
Surely the UK workers would be unwilling to work for these wages, doing these jobs in any case?
Is that not the reason why those jobs are available for the migrant workers to do in the first place - otherwise all these jobs would surely already be filled by British workers?
This situation primarily results from the level the Government sets it’s dole benefits at, combined with our membership of the EC.
There is a suggestion that a generation of low-skilled British workers risks being ‘trapped’ in unemployment by record immigration.
They express concern that a combination of generous benefits and immigrant labour willing to work for low wages will create "an underclass of discouraged British workers."
A single person under 25, on the minimum wage of £193 pw is just £10 a day better off than if they were on the dole. A married person with two children is £30 pw better off than on the dole.
So what’s all this myth exploding nonsense then? The British worker would appear to be virtually as well off on the dole as doing these jobs. It is not surprising they don’t want to do the jobs. But it is still definitely a matter of them not being willing to do the jobs for the money.
It seems that Frank Field, the former Labour welfare reform minister interprets this as immigrant workers ‘trapping’ British-born people in unemployment, because the higher the level of immigration in an area, the ‘harder’ it is for the unemployed to come off Jobseeker's Allowance.
This is backwards logic at best. The state can hardly blame migrant workers for the fact that it pays such generous dole benefits that, by the time transport costs and the bother of getting up in the morning are taken into account, the recipients are unwilling to do jobs that would probably actually leave them worse off, while the more motivated migrant workers are willing to underbid them for work.
Surely the UK workers would be unwilling to work for these wages, doing these jobs in any case?
Is that not the reason why those jobs are available for the migrant workers to do in the first place - otherwise all these jobs would surely already be filled by British workers?
This situation primarily results from the level the Government sets it’s dole benefits at, combined with our membership of the EC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)