Smokers suck

[Guest alex]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

[Fop 1]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

 

Aye and speed cameras aren't there to raise revenue.

 

Although this sad case shows how cunningly they've implemented the ban, basically because they tend hit the businesses instead of the people directly any secondary issues and issues with enforcement aren't "blamed" on the ban as such.

 

Fortunately business don't have "rights" so it works, kinda, where as in other "anti-social" behaviour it cannot.

[Renton 21996]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

 

Aye and speed cameras aren't there to raise revenue.

 

Although this sad case shows how cunningly they've implemented the ban, basically because they tend hit the businesses instead of the people directly any secondary issues and issues with enforcement aren't "blamed" on the ban as such.

 

Fortunately business don't have "rights" so it works, kinda, where as in other "anti-social" behaviour it cannot.

 

I haven't got a clue what you are waffling on about but I assumed Alex wasn't making a serious comment.

[Fop 1]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

 

Aye and speed cameras aren't there to raise revenue.

 

Although this sad case shows how cunningly they've implemented the ban, basically because they tend hit the businesses instead of the people directly any secondary issues and issues with enforcement aren't "blamed" on the ban as such.

 

Fortunately business don't have "rights" so it works, kinda, where as in other "anti-social" behaviour it cannot.

 

I haven't got a clue what you are waffling on about but I assumed Alex wasn't making a serious comment.

 

And what has that got to do with......... anything?

[Renton 21996]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

 

Aye and speed cameras aren't there to raise revenue.

 

Although this sad case shows how cunningly they've implemented the ban, basically because they tend hit the businesses instead of the people directly any secondary issues and issues with enforcement aren't "blamed" on the ban as such.

 

Fortunately business don't have "rights" so it works, kinda, where as in other "anti-social" behaviour it cannot.

 

I haven't got a clue what you are waffling on about but I assumed Alex wasn't making a serious comment.

 

And what has that got to do with......... anything?

 

You answered him didn't you, presumably in agreement with him? Whatever.

[Sima 0]

Even with this ban in public places (which I support) the government really haven't seen the bigger picture tbh

[Guest alex]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

 

Aye and speed cameras aren't there to raise revenue.

 

Although this sad case shows how cunningly they've implemented the ban, basically because they tend hit the businesses instead of the people directly any secondary issues and issues with enforcement aren't "blamed" on the ban as such.

 

Fortunately business don't have "rights" so it works, kinda, where as in other "anti-social" behaviour it cannot.

 

I haven't got a clue what you are waffling on about but I assumed Alex wasn't making a serious comment.

 

And what has that got to do with......... anything?

 

You answered him didn't you, presumably in agreement with him? Whatever.

I need to start using the winks again.

[Fop 1]

And the ban was meant to save lives.

 

Aye and speed cameras aren't there to raise revenue.

 

Although this sad case shows how cunningly they've implemented the ban, basically because they tend hit the businesses instead of the people directly any secondary issues and issues with enforcement aren't "blamed" on the ban as such.

 

Fortunately business don't have "rights" so it works, kinda, where as in other "anti-social" behaviour it cannot.

 

I haven't got a clue what you are waffling on about but I assumed Alex wasn't making a serious comment.

 

And what has that got to do with......... anything?

 

You answered him didn't you, presumably in agreement with him? Whatever.

I need to start using the winks again.

 

As do I, although it's probably less fun.

[Fop 1]

Office printers 'are health risk'

By Nick Bryant

BBC News, Sydney

 

Generic office picture

Office printers emit tiny particles of toner, the scientists say

The humble office laser printer can damage lungs in much the same way as smoke particles from cigarettes, a team of Australian scientists has found.

 

An investigation of a range of printer models showed that almost a third emit potentially dangerous levels of toner into the air.

 

The Queensland University of Technology scientists have called on ministers to regulate these kinds of emissions.

 

They say some printers should come with a health warning.

 

The researchers carried out tests on more than 60 machines.

 

Almost one-third were found to emit ultra-tiny particles of toner-like material, so small that they can infiltrate the lungs and cause a range of health problems from respiratory irritation to more chronic illnesses.

 

Conducted in an open-plan office, the test revealed that particle levels increased five-fold during working hours, a rise blamed on printer use.

 

The problem was worse when new cartridges were used and when graphics and images required higher quantities of toner.

 

The researchers have called on governments to regulate air quality in offices.

 

They also want companies to ensure that printers are based in well-ventilated areas so that particles disperse.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6923915.stm

 

 

 

 

Time to get out that banning legislation again.

[Radgina 1]

So I'm a bit fucked with the one on the end of my desk at work then ???

[Guest Patrokles]

I've noticed since the smoking ban was introduced I've probably had to inhale more second-hand smoke because everyone just congregates together on the pavement now. It's unavoidable!

[Guest alex]

So I'm a bit fucked with the one on the end of my desk at work then ???

The least of your worries pet