Driving without seat belt - Online course or £100 Fixed penalty?

NottinghamKnight

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Scrapit

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

TooManyPoints

 I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

That's very possibly true. Who knows? But, armed with your in-depth knowledge of seismology, would you pay a £100 fine or take a course when accused of a seatbelt offence?  

NottinghamKnight

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

I'm a chartered geologist with post graduate qualifications, you seem to do something wearing masks.......

Scrapit

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

I'm a chartered geologist with post graduate qualifications, you seem to do something wearing masks.......

Good, that makes two of us then. I worked in basin analysis but now work in geotechnics on shore, hence the masks.
Using your knowledge please explain how my analogy of the media incorrectly using irrelevant masks naming systems and the media incorrectly using irrelevant magnitude measuring systems isnt a pretty much perfect analogy?

Scrapit

TooManyPoints said:

 I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

That's very possibly true. Who knows? But, armed with your in-depth knowledge of seismology, would you pay a £100 fine or take a course when accused of a seatbelt offence?  

I'd pay the fine and not do the course with or without a mask. I cant imagine the course is very in depth: wear a seat belt, it'll probably keep you alive. How they stretch that to several hours I dont know

NottinghamKnight

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

I'm a chartered geologist with post graduate qualifications, you seem to do something wearing masks.......

Good, that makes two of us then. I worked in basin analysis but now work in geotechnics on shore, hence the masks.
Using your knowledge please explain how my analogy of the media incorrectly using irrelevant masks naming systems and the media incorrectly using irrelevant magnitude measuring systems isnt a pretty much perfect analogy?

My sympathies, I haven't had to use masks on site for many years and it sounds like you are doing quite a basic job, but a consequence of the oil price and fossil fuel reduction I guess. If you are working in geotechnics, rather than contamination, then it would be unusual to wear a mask; also it would be unusual for your mask wearing to be related to a biological rather than a physical or chemical source. Asbestos is what you are primarily guarding against I would imagine. You chose a very poor analogy as you seemed to be saying that the ritcher (sic) scale was an objective assessment; you could use virtually any media article you wanted to show media inaccuracy. A poster accused me of being an idiot recently when I had to point out that all the gold in the world wouldn't be mined out in the next decade or so (from a bbc article) and it wasn't 1850 and gold was now mined and crushed from deposits at a concentration of a few grams per tonne rather than some guys wandering round and looking for gold nuggets.  

Scrapit

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

I'm a chartered geologist with post graduate qualifications, you seem to do something wearing masks.......

Good, that makes two of us then. I worked in basin analysis but now work in geotechnics on shore, hence the masks.
Using your knowledge please explain how my analogy of the media incorrectly using irrelevant masks naming systems and the media incorrectly using irrelevant magnitude measuring systems isnt a pretty much perfect analogy?

My sympathies, I haven't had to use masks on site for many years and it sounds like you are doing quite a basic job, but a consequence of the oil price and fossil fuel reduction I guess. If you are working in geotechnics, rather than contamination, then it would be unusual to wear a mask; also it would be unusual for your mask wearing to be related to a biological rather than a physical or chemical source. Asbestos is what you are primarily guarding against I would imagine. You chose a very poor analogy as you seemed to be saying that the ritcher (sic) scale was an objective assessment; you could use virtually any media article you wanted to show media inaccuracy. A poster accused me of being an idiot recently when I had to point out that all the gold in the world wouldn't be mined out in the next decade or so (from a bbc article) and it wasn't 1850 and gold was now mined and crushed from deposits at a concentration of a few grams per tonne rather than some guys wandering round and looking for gold nuggets.  

Whilst that is a lovely anecdote its not a very good explanation of why its not a good analogy. The media taking something and using it verbatim without checking is pretty much what you are telling us happened in your story. Thats also what I'm saying...
As an aside I've regularly used masks for my work over the last 2 decades. The risks are varied and depend on the site setting. Anthrax is top of the pops for this weeks location.

[Deleted User]

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

I'm a chartered geologist with post graduate qualifications, you seem to do something wearing masks.......

Good, that makes two of us then. I worked in basin analysis but now work in geotechnics on shore, hence the masks.
Using your knowledge please explain how my analogy of the media incorrectly using irrelevant masks naming systems and the media incorrectly using irrelevant magnitude measuring systems isnt a pretty much perfect analogy?

My sympathies, I haven't had to use masks on site for many years and it sounds like you are doing quite a basic job, but a consequence of the oil price and fossil fuel reduction I guess. If you are working in geotechnics, rather than contamination, then it would be unusual to wear a mask; also it would be unusual for your mask wearing to be related to a biological rather than a physical or chemical source. Asbestos is what you are primarily guarding against I would imagine. You chose a very poor analogy as you seemed to be saying that the ritcher (sic) scale was an objective assessment; you could use virtually any media article you wanted to show media inaccuracy. A poster accused me of being an idiot recently when I had to point out that all the gold in the world wouldn't be mined out in the next decade or so (from a bbc article) and it wasn't 1850 and gold was now mined and crushed from deposits at a concentration of a few grams per tonne rather than some guys wandering round and looking for gold nuggets.  

Whilst that is a lovely anecdote its not a very good explanation of why its not a good analogy. The media taking something and using it verbatim without checking is pretty much what you are telling us happened in your story. Thats also what I'm saying...
As an aside I've regularly used masks for my work over the last 2 decades. The risks are varied and depend on the site setting. Anthrax is top of the pops for this weeks location.

Moving the goalposts and constantly changing what you're arguing against isn't a valid tactic.
The earthquake scale is used to measure the power of the quake, not how deadly or destructive it is which will always be affected by where it is, the make-up of the land etc. Where are examples of the media doing what you claim?
The mask science is established - they aren't claiming masks stop you getting the disease, they are saying they help stop the spread, which they do, by blocking (to a varying degree) larger droplets like when you cough or sneeze which can carry the virus.

Scrapit

Deleted_User said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Scrapit said:

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

 Refrencing the n95 rating is bit like the ritcher scale, only used by the press and has no real meaning here.

The ritcher scale has no real meaning anywhere.

It is relatable, it has easily defined boundary between levels and observable effects.

But the observable effects aren't consistent - just look at the list of largest earthquakes and their impacts, there is no consistent correlation with number of deaths, cost of damage etc

Yes it is. Its the physical effects of the forces released.

No, because it depends on the location of the quake (depth as well as lat/long) and actually the geology and soils and rock involved. Physical effects will vary, and not only the that impact on humans, hard rock at surface will react differently to sand, or clay. It's actually fundamentally a very poor analogy.

Its certainly not, its spot on. I dont need an lecture in seismic events from some poster on a forum.

I'm a chartered geologist with post graduate qualifications, you seem to do something wearing masks.......

Good, that makes two of us then. I worked in basin analysis but now work in geotechnics on shore, hence the masks.
Using your knowledge please explain how my analogy of the media incorrectly using irrelevant masks naming systems and the media incorrectly using irrelevant magnitude measuring systems isnt a pretty much perfect analogy?

My sympathies, I haven't had to use masks on site for many years and it sounds like you are doing quite a basic job, but a consequence of the oil price and fossil fuel reduction I guess. If you are working in geotechnics, rather than contamination, then it would be unusual to wear a mask; also it would be unusual for your mask wearing to be related to a biological rather than a physical or chemical source. Asbestos is what you are primarily guarding against I would imagine. You chose a very poor analogy as you seemed to be saying that the ritcher (sic) scale was an objective assessment; you could use virtually any media article you wanted to show media inaccuracy. A poster accused me of being an idiot recently when I had to point out that all the gold in the world wouldn't be mined out in the next decade or so (from a bbc article) and it wasn't 1850 and gold was now mined and crushed from deposits at a concentration of a few grams per tonne rather than some guys wandering round and looking for gold nuggets.  

Whilst that is a lovely anecdote its not a very good explanation of why its not a good analogy. The media taking something and using it verbatim without checking is pretty much what you are telling us happened in your story. Thats also what I'm saying...
As an aside I've regularly used masks for my work over the last 2 decades. The risks are varied and depend on the site setting. Anthrax is top of the pops for this weeks location.

Moving the goalposts and constantly changing what you're arguing against isn't a valid tactic.
The earthquake scale is used to measure the power of the quake, not how deadly or destructive it is which will always be affected by where it is, the make-up of the land etc. Where are examples of the media doing what you claim?
The mask science is established - they aren't claiming masks stop you getting the disease, they are saying they help stop the spread, which they do, by blocking (to a varying degree) larger droplets like when you cough or sneeze which can carry the virus.

No goal posts have been moved. I'm sorry you havent understood but I cant help that. A prime example of the media doing what I claim is anytime they do what I claim. Anytime at all. Hence my fitting analogy.