Latest posts:
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
What a poor piece!
The reporter mentions 'race' and 'racial background' etc, but fails to tell us exactly why 'race' should be the deciding factor for discrimination.
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
Am I missing the point.
Since when was calling someone 'love' discriminatory or harassing?
It's a commonly used phrase in many parts such 'mate' or 'man' or 'duck' etc
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
Is the hostility directed at you?
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
I presume you mean working or even living in the vicinty of HV equipment.
HV transmisssion lines (pylons) have been linked to various cancers but the link couldn't be proven.
Again the link came about as a result of statistics.
They were called 'cancer clusters'
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
Speaking from a "White Atheist Male's" point of view.
I don't recruit staff but I'm puzzled to know why a potential employer would favour an 'inferior' 'white' potential employee over a 'superior' 'black' employee, that would not just be racist that would be spiteful and potentially harmful to the business.
I know I'd personally want what was best for the business and for me.
Therefore I believe this to be re-action to symptoms not to the root cause.
The symptoms show up in government statistics but the underlying cause is often ignored.
On a personal view I've worked in some pretty hazardous places around the world and when you literally put your life in someone else's hands you want the best hands not the right colour hands.
(White Male) (We're entitled to opinions too and shouldn't receive discrimination because we're White Males).
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
Yet more social experimentation destined for the "Whoops we got it slghtly wrong 20 years ago" bin.
So much for socialy integrated multiculturism the wedge is just going to be driven a little deeper.
It wouldn't be too long before this 'positive discrimination' would turn to 'negative discrimination' as the tables were turned with no legal re-dress for the new 'victims'.
At least the present 'victims' of discrimination have the law on their side at the moment.
One law for one UK citizen and another law for the other UK citizen.
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
There's no doubting 110v is a step in the right direction and battery is a step further, but using 240v isn't inherently dangerous if used in the correct environment with appropriate measures in place.
Every work tool sold in every DIY establishment is 240v.
I personally believe you are more at danger from the types of hand held tools available rather than the supply voltage.
it would be interesting to see a comparison of types of injuries relating to hand held power tools.
I know I've never been electrocuted by a power tool but have received many other injuries from them.
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
You are of course correct in all your comments regarding construction sites but I think the original question was one of whether all work tools have to be 110v.
The simple answer is no and not all hand held work tools are electric.
Other hazardous environments apart from construction sites have different requirements again.
Environments such as mines and oil and gas installations where not just concerns from indirect contact with a live source are the only hazard to the operator of the tool.
In such environments the risk assesment may call for air powered tools etc as in metal fabrication shops.
Rate this!
someone somewhere
Member - 13 posts
As far as I know there's no requirement for 110v hand tools anywhere.
It was introduced but then revoked as being inpractical.
The qualification was, that should 240v tools be used they should be connected via an RCD.
An RCD offers better overall protection than centre tapped 110v supplies.
0 (0)
