tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28859838831154104362024-03-14T04:30:06.610+00:00Ten Percent Or Less......Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-74946440333365152232014-07-03T12:20:00.001+01:002014-07-13T22:11:39.245+01:00Will the new Bank of England mortgage regulations really change the housing market?In an attempt to control the UK housing market the Bank of England has recently put in place new regulations on mortgage lending. The BofE claims the new rules will help to control the UK housing market; at a closer look it doesn't seem like they'll have much of an effect at all.<br />
<br />
The new rules mean mortgage lenders will not be able to lend more than 15% of their total new residential mortgages at a loan to income ratio of 4.5 times or above. Significantly, the 15% limit will apply to total mortgages completed as opposed to total value. It all sounds quite good on face value, why wouldn't it be a good idea to stop people getting into too much debt relative to their salary? This should protect consumers, no? Take a closer look at the figures and you'll see the new regulations actually leave room for banks to increase the current average loan to income ratio of 3.22.<br />
<br />
Firstly, only 9% of new mortgages at the moment break the 4.5 limit. Banks could increase that on average by 6% and still be within the rules. The only area that will really be affected will be London were 19% of loans break the 4.5 rule. Secondly, the rules will only apply to banks lending more than £100m meaning small banks and building societies will be exempt. An attempt to avoid 'too big to fail'? I think so, however even the big banks are only limited on total mortgages completed as opposed to total value. Limiting total value banks could lend isn't something I could see happening despite the fact it would be far better for the housing market in the long term; admittedly with a few casualties along the way.<br />
<br />
The new rules also require a 'stress test' be used to make sure borrowers can repay their loans in the event of a rise in interest rates. The BofE now requires lenders to test borrowers ability to repay their loan over 5 years with a 3% rise in interest rates. Most lenders already apply a test of 6-7% so I can't see many cases when a 3% test would be useful.<br />
<br />
In short the new rules leave plenty of room for the housing market to grow nationwide with a small chance of a cooling in London, the later being the main aim I feel. Considering the amount of foreign money thrown at London property, prices could continue to rise while income stagnates and Londoners aren't able to buy because banks are limited to the 4.5 rule across 15% of their mortgages. Good for investors, bad for those just wanting a place to live.<br />
<br />
We need to get away from looking at houses as an investment to live in and start looking at houses as just homes. How we do that however I have no clue.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-31320165842537878372014-02-10T18:03:00.001+00:002014-07-13T22:10:18.721+01:00Hardwell Odyssey incident, completely blown out of proportion?<br />
For the second time in a week Northern Ireland hit the headlines for the wrong reasons. The Ross Kemp Extreme World documentary highlighted a minority element within Northern Ireland bent on holding everyone else back. The Hardwell incident painted a picture of a city with serious youth drink and drug problems. Unfortunately neither have been fabricated, however the later seems to be have been blown out of all proportion.<br />
<br />
It's important to note that 10,000 Hardwell tickets were sold, admitting persons aged 16 or older. Of those; 108 needed treatment of some kind, 17 went on to be admitted to hospital and none of those admitted were deemed to be in a serious condition, according to the Belfast Telegraph. When you consider 17 is 0.17% of total attendance in and outside the Odyssey, it's not a lot. 17 people out of 10,000 is a number to be expected considering the drinking culture we live in, it's in no way a surprising figure.<br />
<br />
To put the 0.17% figure in perspective, in 2011/12 there were an estimated 1.2 million alcohol related hospital admissions across the UK, 1.875% of the population. Even assuming some people will be admitted multiple times, 1.875% is still significantly higher than the 0.17% rate following Hardwell. The London Ambulance service deals with an average of 197 999 calls relating to alcohol everyday, 71,905 per year. At peak one in every five 999 calls are alcohol related. <span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The London Ambulance figures are based on information given at the time the 999 call is received, or where alcohol is recorded by frontline staff as being the main reason for treatment. T</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">he figures don’t even take into account other incidents such as assaults, minor falls and other injuries that may have happened because someone had been drinking. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hardwell just put large numbers of people consuming alcohol in one location, the rate of </span><span style="background-color: white;">hospitalisation was nothing special when compared to the rest of the UK. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />Laverys in Belfast can hold 1700 people at capacity, if the average age was around 18 would you be surprised to see 2 or 3 people needing to go to hospital (none serious) factoring in underage drinking?<br /><br />The Northern Ireland nightlife could suffer as a result of something relatively average when compared to cities across the UK.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-6700495798039614702013-08-20T20:20:00.001+01:002014-07-13T22:10:56.068+01:00Is a women's Tour de France in 2014 a realistic goal? <br />
I want to make it clear from the outset, I am not against the idea of a women's Tour de France. Of course the pinnacle of cycling should have gender equality, whether it realistically can happen within a 12 month window is the question we should be asking.<br />
<br />
A recent petition [<a href="https://www.change.org/petitions/aso-amaury-sports-organization-allow-female-professional-cycling-teams-to-race-the-tour-de-france" target="_blank">found here</a>], addressed to Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme requesting gender equality has been championed by many as the necessary first step. The petition, from the pen of Emma Pooley, Kathryn Bertine, Marianne Vos and Chrissie Wellington, requests that a women's professional field is added to the 2014 Tour de France. The petition doesn't request that ASO simply add a racing schedule that includes women, but that they run a professional race for women in conjunction with the men's event. It's requested that such a race would be run at the same time, over the same distances and on the same days; I don't feel that it's reasonable to request such an event within a 12 month time frame. To be frank, I feel such a request is actually doing the women's professional scene a disservice. A push for so much, so quickly, has the potential to put ASO off. Surely approaching them with a petition requesting to race the final Champs Elysee stage of the 2014 Tour in its entirety would be a realistic goal, the first step of many on the path to gender equality. <br />
<br />
The Tour de France is a monstrous machine, one which already poses significant logistical challenges. We're talking 1200 hotel rooms reserved daily, 1500 vehicles, 13,000 gendarmes and around 4500 accompanying persons including cyclists, mechanics, drivers, managers, journalists. Is it realistic to superimpose a women's event within 12 months? ASO don't start planning the next edition of the Tour after the previous edition has ended, it's a process that begins years in advance. ASO will already have financially invested in planning the 2014 edition, it's unreasonable to expect them to alter those plans immediately at their expense. Why couldn't the petition have requested to have an event in conjunction within say 4 years, giving time to plan properly such a huge undertaking. It seems to me that this petition hasn't considered that it would take far more than a year to integrate successfully an identical women's event with the men's. <br />
<br />
I'm not qualified to discuss the sport science aspect of a women's Tour, something which Emma Pooley very rightly pointed out to me on Twitter recently. I had mistakenly said that a women's Tour over the same parcours would be too physiologically demanding. I was responsible for promoting the same myths of physical limitations the petition seeks to debunk, for that I apologise. I don't however feel that a massive jump in race duration and distance for just one event each year is in the best interest of the sport. The average stage distance at the 2013 Giro Rosa was just over 100km, the average at the 2013 Tour was 162km. If I'm wrong on this please correct me, but surely it would be better to gradually increase the distances of all the existing women's races on the calendar and build towards the same distances as the men? Speaking from my own limited racing experience, I wouldn't want to enter an event three times longer than anything I'd ridden previously with stages on average 60% longer; I'd much prefer to build up to such a grueling task. If racing over the same distances is something the women's professional peloton desires, they'd also need the UCI to first change the rules restricting race length before any route could be planned. Something much easier said than done, the UCI aren't exactly famed for their decision making abilities. Thanks to the UCI I now own a pair of illegal socks, five years ago I wouldn't have thought that possible.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it's very unlikely that we'll have what the petition requests by July 2014, but that isn't to say the petition will have been a failure, far from it. The four women at the centre have ignited the debate and that was always going to be the starting point. True gender equality across cycling as a whole will take time, it isn't something that can be forced through overnight. I'm almost certain that the close to 100,000 people who've signed the petition would sign another pushing for the inclusion of women on some level at next year's Tour. Compromise is going to have to come from both sides. I fear that such a demanding request will be ignored by ASO, whereas a petition requesting simply inclusion on a smaller level to begin with would be far more likely to succeed.<br />
<br />
<br />
As always, discussion or correction welcomed......Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-63208000997257934502013-08-12T11:27:00.000+01:002013-08-12T11:27:01.801+01:00Is America to blame for North Korea's nuclear weapons program? <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Up until January 2003 North Korea were part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The objective of said Treaty is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.1875px;">and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. </span>On the 10th of January the North Koreans gave notice of a withdrawal from the Treaty alleging that the U.S. had started an illegal uranium enrichment program. The withdrawal became effective on the 10th of April, but did they really pull out because of an illegal enrichment program?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In September 2002 George Bush had begun formally making his case to the United Nations for an invasion of Iraq; stating Iraq was "a grave and gathering danger". In his state of the union address the following January he </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">refered to North Korea, Iran and Iraq collectively as the 'Axis of Evil'.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> By February an invasion was almost certain and by March troops were on the ground in Iraq. Kim Jong Il watched as George Bush followed through on his administration's preemptive strike policy, I believe this to be the event that significantly increased North Korea's drive to build nuclear weapons. It would seem Kim Jong Il felt Saddam was ousted because he didn't have nuclear capabilities, the world takes you seriously when you have a nuclear bomb. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Three weeks after the invasion of Iraq, North Korea officially withdrew from the NPT and three years later they announced they had successfully tested a nuclear device. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It would appear that North Korea invested in nuclear weapons technology as a defence strategy and not to attack the rest of the world like the US government would like everyone to believe. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While I'm not condoning it, building nuclear weapons to protect yourself from a global bully could be considered a perfectly rational response. If North Korea ever do use a nuclear warhead, aggressive American foreign policy will be largely to blame. Not that they'll ever admit that.</span><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-64148619956480767122013-07-09T13:09:00.000+01:002013-07-11T10:21:10.788+01:00Should ecstasy be a prescription drug?<br />
Next week, BBC Panorama will air an edition focusing on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and how it affects serving soldiers, veterans and their families. Curiously the Ministry of Defense releases suicide statistics of serving soldiers but ignores the rate of suicide in veterans. According to a 2004 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, 18% of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan had PTSD and more died from suicide than in combat. Obviously as the war in Iraq became more violent, more soldiers died from combat, it's reasonable to assume the number returning with PTSD also increased, and as a result the suicide rate increased. Hopefully Panorama will be able to back these assumptions up with facts, as yet I haven't found anything I deem reliable on the subject for 2012.<br />
<br />
If large numbers of soldiers are returning with PTSD, you'd assume that doctors could treat afflicted people in the most effective and efficient way. This isn't the case. Doctors currently treat PTSD with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and benzodiazepines with limited results short term, suffers can be left unable to function in society for years despite receiving treatment.<br />
<br />
In 2011, the first randomised controlled pilot study into the safety and efficacy of methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA/ecstasy) in a psychotherapy setting was published. The study found that after two sessions of ecstasy assisted psychotherapy, 10 out of 12 subjects no longer had the disorder. That's an 83% success rate over a matter of weeks or days. The study also found that there where no negative neurocognitive effects and they had no negative drug related events. Under the supervision of a doctor, fatal or damaging reactions to ecstasy are almost unheard of.<br />
<br />
Why don't we give people the opportunity to relieve disorders such as PTSD with a drug shown to be effective? We allow cancer patients to pump themselves full of incredibly toxic drugs or be exposed to radiation in the hope that it will increase their life expectancy. Major surgery can have serious risks of death but we afford people the opportunity to make an informed decision; ecstasy should be no different.<br />
<br />
So why is ecstasy still a controlled and class A drug and unavailable to doctors?<br />
<br />
Put simply, some illegal drug policies are written on misinformed public opinion and not evidence based. The majority of the British public view ecstasy as extremely dangerous; yet when scientists such as Dr David Nutt use evidence and years of research to show that alcohol is far more harmful to users and society than ecstasy, he's branded a 'mad man' by the Daily Mail. David Nutt was sacked from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs because he used scientific evidence to show that horse riding was a more dangerous activity than taking ecstasy. He was appointed to advise on drugs, yet when he did just that he was sacked because it wasn't what Home Secretary Alan Johnson wanted him to say. If the public are misinformed and view ecstasy in the same light as cocaine and heroin, Johnson knows that he and his party will lose votes by going against that view whether it be evidence based or not. <br />
<br />
In my opinion ecstasy should be available for doctors to prescribe. The UK government has sent thousands of men and women to fight unnecessary wars in foreign countries in the last decade, if they survive the least we can do as a society is help them return to a 'normal life'. Can you imagine if a banned drug cured 83% of cancers and the government criminalised patients?<br />
<br />
As always, thoughts welcome. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-58327381747693880672013-05-02T13:38:00.001+01:002013-05-03T09:49:01.691+01:00Why aren't benefits means tested for the over 65?<br />
Polling stations for the 2013 local elections are now open across England. More than 2,300 seats are to be contested in county council and unitary authority elections, including the seat for South Shields vacated following the resignation of David Miliband.<br />
<br />
What I find interesting is that in a time of austerity the predicted turnout for the 18-34 age group is well under 50%, even the during the last general election only 51% of that age group made it to a polling station. I'm not sure whether it's a general lack of interest in politics or a mentality of 'my vote won't matter'; the later couldn't be any further from the truth. A high percentage turnout for a particular age group is vital if you actually want the Government to listen to what you want.<br />
<br />
The average turnout of voters aged 65 or over during the last general election was 76%; the highest turnout of any age group and a fact politicians are well aware of. You only need look at how quick David Cameron was to dismiss Iain Duncan Smith's suggestion that wealthy pensioners should give back their free bus pass, television licence and winter fuel allowance. Cameron has promised that all benefits available to those over 65 would remain in place regardless of their financial situation, essentially he's trading a few billion pounds for a few million votes.<br />
<br />
Benefits should always be means tested, it should be a system helping those who truly need it and not those who feel they deserve it because they've worked hard all their life. The over 65 are the only age group to receive full benefits regardless of whether they need it or not. Every other age group has had to deal with significant cuts, why should the over 65 be any different?<br />
<br />
An unemployed person in their mid-twenties isn't entitled to job seekers allowance if they have more than £16,000 worth of savings. A multi-millionaire pensioner can claim a full pension, free bus pass, free television licence and receive a winter fuel allowance at the tax payers expense. Where's the fairness in that?<br />
<br />
It's incredibly unlikely that the Conservatives will make any significant cuts to over 65 benefits this close to a general election, they can't afford to lose the votes. It would seem that David Cameron is willing to take from those who'll have less of a say in whether he remains at 10 Downing Street.<br />
<br />
In 2009 Cameron claimed a Conservative Government would take 'unpopular' decisions, how about you actually follow through on that David?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-547142716140702672013-01-31T08:30:00.000+00:002013-01-31T09:21:11.666+00:00Can Spain afford to reveal doping in football?<br />
On the eve of the 2006 Tour de France cycling was rocked by yet another drug scandal, Operacion Puerto. The Spanish Police had uncovered a vast doping network organised by Dr Eufemiano Fuentes, a network used by some of the biggest names in the sport. Not since the Festina affair had the Tour been broadcast in such a negative light. The two favourites, Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich were thrown out of the race along with Alexandre Vinokourov and Francisco Mancebo among others. Much to the annoyance of many cycling fans, the press coverage focussed primarily on the involvement of cyclists despite Fuentes himself stating that cyclists only made up roughly one third of his client base.<br />
<br />
Fuentes stated on record that he counted track and field athletes, tennis players, hand ballers and footballers among his clients despite no names officially being linked to Puerto from any of the aforementioned sports. Why is it that the name of every cyclist on Fuentes' 'list' is public knowledge while the footballers or tennis players keep their anonymity? Even this week as the Operacion Puerto trial started the Spanish authorities explicitly stated that the trial would focus only on cycling. This is despite their acknowledgement of the involvement of other sports and pressure from WADA to release the additional evidence.<br />
<br />
Why is Spain so keen to protect sports such as football at the expense of cycling? Put simply football is worth a lot more money to a failing Spanish economy, especially an international team that wins trophies. Financially they can't afford to reveal the truth.<br />
<br />
In 2006 French newspaper Le Monde acquired two sheets of A4 paper whilst interviewing Fuentes at his Canary Island home, the sheets in Fuentes' handwriting were 'preparation plans' for the 2005-2006 season. Allegedly the 'preparation plans' were not for cyclists but for Barcelona FC with the Champions League and the World Cup as the primary goals. The plans contained circles for steroid cycles and 'IG' symbols similar to those used to indicate insulin use on a cycling plan found in Fuentes' Madrid office. In addition to steroid cycling and insulin use the plans also contained small 'e' notations and circles with a dot in the centre. These were thought to indicate when EPO injections and blood transfusions were to be performed. Barcelona denied the Fuentes link but did admit to attempting to hire him in 1996 and 2002, both times their offer was refused.<br />
<br />
It's almost certain that despite Operacion Puerto, Fuentes continued to help athletes dope. This is evident by his involvement in Operacion Galgo (2010), in which Fuentes again found himself at the centre of a doping scandal. As a result of Galgo Fuentes spent a night in prison during which he reportedly bragged, "If I said what I know, goodbye to the World Cup and European Championship". It's worth noting that while Barcelona allegedly planned to 'prepare' for the World Cup in 2006, a large portion of the Spanish National team that won the World Cup in 2010 constituted Barcelona players. I highly doubt that Barcelona stopped doping post Puerto and Fuentes, it seems far more likely that Fuentes was simply replaced.<br />
<br />
A World Cup and two European titles; the financial benefit associated with winning a World Cup alone is pretty staggering. ING estimated that by winning the World Cup Spain boosted their GDP growth by 0.25-0.5%, quite a big increase when you're really struggling. Add on the economic benefits from two European Championships and you can see how much international football has helped Spain since 2008. Even if you consider the tourism revenue from Barcelona and Real Madrid alone, Spain has a lot to lose if the truth was revealed. <br />
<br />
It could be argued that Spain has already reaped the majority of the benefits associated with international football success. The big prize however is still to come, the 2020 Olympic games. If Spain were awarded the 2020 Olympics it would create jobs, increase tourism and if done correctly turn a respectable long term profit. Include football in the Operacion Puerto trial and all this could potentially be replaced with a serious dent to national pride.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2885983883115410436" name="more"></a>Even this morning when Fuentes said he would name all he athletes he'd treated, the judge refused. It seems that the Spanish authorities are willing to go to serious lengths to ensure both national pride in their football teams and the associated financial benefits.<br />
<br />
It's my opinion that a large majority of the Spanish national team used performance enhancing products during the 2010 World Cup and the 2008 and 2012 European Championships. Spain simply can't afford a doping scandal that would disgrace their prized possession; they're willing to sacrifice cycling to save football. <br />
<br />
As always, discussion welcome.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-65504861609720806652013-01-23T07:57:00.000+00:002013-01-31T09:30:06.929+00:00Is tipping altruism or based on service?<br />
I've always been interested in the practice of tipping and in particular whether the quality of service actually reflects the tip given. In theory you reward for good or outstanding service while penalising for poor or in my opinion adequate service. Saying that, I've not always found this to be the case. I've found that people tend to tip a set amount unless the service has an extreme attribute i.e. the waiter has gone above and beyond their mandate or they've spat in your soup. I'm aware that a number of US states are still without minimum wage and as a result waiters rely heavily on tips, a clear incentive to provide a quality service. In the UK however minimum wage is nationwide and as such the incentive to exceed the bare minimum doesn't exist to the same extent. I've found that people still tend to tip even if they receive adequate service, something I find puzzling and don't agree with despite previously working in a restaurant.<br />
<br />
For example, I've found people will leave a tip if their chosen food arrives warm and within 30 minutes. Surely this is the bare minimum you expect from a restaurant and not something worth paying extra for? When I fly I expect to arrive on time and alive, I don't leave five pounds on the seat for whatever airline meets that standard. Why should a restaurant be any different? If a waiter or restaurant goes beyond what I expect i.e. lets me change a set menu item, then I can see why that would warrant an additional token of thanks. Bringing my chosen food promptly and warm is simply expected.<br />
<br />
If people still leave a tip for an expected level of service, it suggests they're not tipping based on service but for another reason altogether. Could it be people just like to feel generous? Giving an unnecessary tip makes you feel better than if you'd just paid the bill and not a penny more. Altruism is good for your emotional well-being.<br />
<br />
I believe when faced with small amounts of money the majority of people will take a moral incentive over an economic incentive i.e. the feeling of being generous over the money saved by withholding a tip. It's actually quite similar to donating blood. Research has shown that when given a small stipend for donating blood as opposed to being praised for their altruism, people tend to donate less blood. Essentially I believe people tip to feel better about themselves and not to reflect the quality of service they've received.<br />
<br />
As always, thoughts welcome. <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-13492268882023522112012-09-26T14:49:00.000+01:002012-09-26T23:59:57.549+01:00Fuelling to the brim, how much extra does it cost?<br />
I've always had an interest in fuel efficiency, particularly in cars as it's something I can easily relate to. Most of my experimenting has been in a 1.9TDi Seat Leon with a 54.5 litre tank, admittedly with mixed results. I once managed to travel 950 miles on a single tank, drafting behind lorries at 45 mph the majority of the time to average 79 miles to the gallon. I've also run out of fuel twice, once on a remote section of unlit Scottish motorway 10 miles from the nearest exit and not an experience I'd like to repeat.<br />
<br />
Despite averaging nearly 80 mpg once I've found it an almost impossible task to repeat, mainly because it's extremely boring to never exceed 45 mph or 1500 rpm. I've found I'm more interested in working out efficient ways to drive as opposed to putting them into practice.<br />
<br />
What I'd now like to work out is how much money you could save by carrying the minimum amount of fuel needed to complete a particular journey. It's generally accepted that an extra 45kg in your vehicle could reduce the average mpg by up to 2%, with Northern Ireland being pretty lumpy and the road surfaces quite heavy I'm going to use the full 2%.<br />
<br />
<br />
Using a Seat Leon, 1.9TDi (54.5 litre tank) as an example:<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Diesel weighs approximately 0.85kg per litre meaning a full tank will add 46.3kg to the car. This will reduce the average mpg by around 2.05%, compared to a car with a tank 2% full.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>If the vehicle averaged 50 mpg with a tank 98-100% full, the average mpg should increase to just over 51 mpg when the tank is 0-2% full. The only issue being it's almost impossible to drive anywhere with a tank just 2% full, a better comparison would be a daily commute.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Say you had a daily commute of 30 miles, averaging 50 mpg you would only need 2.75 litres of fuel or a tank filled 5% to complete that journey. If you did that journey with a full tank the average mpg would drop to 49, improving the average as fuel is brunt and the car gets lighter. The tank 5% full will obviously need topping up on a daily basis.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When carrying roughly 12 gallons of diesel (full) the average mpg will drop by 1 mpg, 0.92 mpg carrying 11 gallons, 0.83 mpg with 10 gallons and so on. Over the course of an entire tank the vehicle will have traveled 6.5 miles less than if you'd put just 2.75 litres in the tank every day, costing an additional 87 pence.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
It's clear that fueling specifically for a particular journey just isn't worth it, not to mention the fact you'd only save money if nothing ever went wrong. I'd question the sanity of anyone that would spend an extra half an hour at the pumps every week to save less than a pound. The exact savings will obviously vary slightly from car to car, the bottom line however will stay the same.<br />
<br />
You'd be far better off removing the spare tyre along with the passenger seats.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-90044082711576857532012-09-25T14:51:00.000+01:002012-09-25T14:51:54.358+01:00How much does the Royal Family cost the UK?<br />
The British Royal Family is probably the most well known family in the world. Simply by looking at the television ratings of the most recent Royal Wedding and the Diamond Jubilee, it's clear that people around the world go nuts for British Royalty. Saying that, how much do the Royals cost the British taxpayer? Is it really worth keeping them around?<br />
<br />
The simple answer is yes, it's actually very profitable.<br /><br />
Firstly it's important to note that the Royal Family received £30 million from the British taxpayer in 2011, significantly lower than the £35 million received in 2010 as a result of austerity measures. While not an amount to be sniffed at, £30 million for the upkeep of the Royal Family is pretty good value for money. To help explain why, we need to go all the way back to King George III. George III wasn't terribly good with money and despite owning massive amounts of land, he racked up huge debts. He decided to surrender the profits from his land to Parliament for the remainder of his life in return for a fixed salary and his debts removed. This agreement between Parliament and the Royal Family has continued to this very day with every Monarch since George III voluntarily agreeing to surrender the profit from the 'Crown Estate' in exchange for living and state expenses.<br />
<br />
The Crown Estate today is one of the most value property portfolios in the UK with an estimated worth of £7 billion generating profits of roughly £240 million during the last tax year. Once you subtract the £30 million of taxpayer money, the Crown Estate made the UK £210 million. It's a pretty good deal.<br />
<br />
Another way the Royal Family contributes to the UK economy is through tourism. While difficult to measure exactly it's estimated the Royal brand is worth roughly £40 billion, adding around £7 billion annually to an ailing economy. To look at a specific example, it's been estimated that the Diamond Jubilee celebrations were worth an additional £2.4 billion to the UK economy. Even if you subtract the £1.2 billion lost through the extra bank holiday the Jubilee still turned a pretty large profit, hours of a miserable looking Queen on television really was worth it.<br />
<br />
I don't consider myself a Royalist in any sense, I'm simply interested in the bottom line. With the United Kingdom's finances in pretty poor condition it would seem keeping the Royal Family is in everyone's best interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
As always, opinions welcome.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-28855952378517041952012-09-16T13:17:00.000+01:002012-09-20T20:03:54.002+01:00Nevin Spence<div style="text-align: start;">
<i style="text-align: center;"><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<i style="text-align: center;">Corinthians 5:6-8: So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I wish I had faith, a quality Nevin Spence had in abundance. His unwavering belief in a higher being was something I respected a great deal, contrary to what our constant bickering may have suggested. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Nevin had an answer for every argument I threw at him, annoyingly I couldn't provide a response for the majority. When I spoke of what I deemed to be his blind faith he replied "Who said it's blind? God is as real to me as anything else", I've never wished to be wrong so much. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In a society were people are judged and criticized at the drop of a hat, Nevin was one of the exceptions. I can't recall him ever saying or doing anything intended to hurt the slightest of feelings, he was without a doubt the most upstanding person I've had the pleasure of knowing. I can only dream of being half the man he was, a true gent. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
He joked last week that our debate on religion would be settled by the second coming or death, I never considered he'd have his answer within days. I hope with every fibre of my being I'm wrong and he's looking down as I write, safe at home.<br />
<br />
I'll miss you mucker, take care.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>Memories and stories you may have of Nevin would be well received in the comments section, RIP. </i> </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-43700291236493974972012-09-13T13:49:00.002+01:002012-09-13T13:52:21.941+01:00Illegal downloading, will you end up in court?<br />
As it stands the UK is roughly two years away from the implementation of the Digital Economy Act. The Act will hope to give the movie, music and television industries long sought after protection against online piracy. Under the Act ISPs will be required to send warning letters to those suspected of illegally downloading copyright material. If the customer receives three letters in a 12 month period their personal details may be passed on to the copyright holders enabling them to begin legal proceedings.<br />
<br />
It's almost impossible to say whether the Act will significantly reduce online piracy. The possibility of ending up in a court room may be enough for some to start parting with cash in return for digital media. Although for the persistent offenders of Act, how likely is it that they'll see the inside of a court room? Using France as a reference point, it would seem that ending up in court is pretty unlikely.<br />
<br />
In France rights holders claimed three million IP addresses had illegally downloaded copyright material over the past two years. Hadopi, France's anti-piracy agency only deemed one million of those worthy of receiving a letter of warning, 10% of those went on to receive a second and a minuscule 0.34% received a third. Hadopi was only able to bring 14 people, or 0.0012% of those who received a first warning letter to court. In my opinion bringing 14 people to court is hardly a victory for rights holders, especially as Hadopi is run at a cost of 12 million euros a year.<br />
<br />
It could be argued that Hadopi is reducing online piracy evident by the fact 90% of those who received a first warning did not receive a second. I believe however this is a result of offenders taking more care in a bid to fly under the radar. It's pretty simple to download through a proxy server, if you wish you can even pay companies a monthly fee to encrypt your traffic to the point it's almost impossible to determine the material you're downloading.<br />
<br />
It would seem come 2014 consumers illegally downloading in the UK will have three options available:<br />
<br />
1. Stop downloading illegal material and start parting with cash.<br />
<br />
2. Subscribe to a service like BT Guard and download through a proxy server.<br />
<br />
3. Ignore the warning letters if they come and face a possible day in court. <br />
<br />
I'd advise taking option number two, it's by far the cheapest and almost guaranteed to keep you under the radar of rights holders.<br />
<br />
<br />
As always, thoughts welcome.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-14093039450204403882012-09-03T20:15:00.000+01:002012-09-03T22:19:41.103+01:00Oscar Pistorius, sour grapes or at a disadvantage?<br />
So much of the Olympic and Paralympic coverage has been centered around the 'Blade Runner', Oscar Pistorius. He was the first double amputee to compete at the Olympics and in no way was he just making up the numbers, reaching the 400m semi-finals and 4x400m final. Considering the fact he competes with, and beats able-bodied athletes it's understandable that he's always a favourite for any race he enters limited to athletes with below knee amputations. Any athlete who beats Pistorius would be deemed to have caused a substantial upset, enter Alan Oliveira.<br />
<br />
Oliveira beat Pistorius over 200m in the T44 final, unfortunately Oliveira's run was over shadowed by Pistorius' comments moments after. Pistorius stated "I can't compete with Alan's stride length......it's very clear that the guys have got very long strides", firstly this just isn't the case. Pistorius took 92 strides (49 in the first 100m, 43 in the second), Oliveira took 98 (52 in the first 100m, 46 in the second). Pistorius' stides are actually longer than Oliveira's, it's Oliveira who can't compete with Pistorius' stride length.<br />
<br />
Secondly Pistorius stated "the guys' legs are unbelievably long", an issue Pistorius says he brought up with the IPC weeks before the games. The IPC has a formula to limit the length of blades based on what they estimate the athlete's height would be if they had both legs. Oliveira's blades are completely legal, falling within the measurements allowed by the IPC. Pistorius could actually lengthen his blades if he wished so I'm not entirely sure why he believes Oliveira's blade length is unfair.<br />
<br />
Interestingly Pistorius also said "the guys are just running ridiculous times", despite the fact all these 'guys' are running slower times than Pistorius himself. Oliveira's winning time was 0.15 seconds slower than the world record Pistorius had set the previous day. Pistourius' comments would suggest he believes anyone who can run nearly as fast as him to be running a 'ridiculous time'. Sounds like sour grapes to me, especially considering Pistorius' trademark has been to come from behind and win by 'ridiculous' margins.<br />
<br />
Another point to consider is how 'slow' Pistorius ran rather than how 'fast' Oliveira did. Pistorius covered the 200m distance 0.28 seconds slower than he did the previous day, 21.30 seconds (a new world record) compared to 21.58. Were the comments following the race a result of disappointment from a tired athlete? It's entirely possible, Pistorius running a much slower final would certainly suggest that. Let's not forget Oliveira has been able to prepare specifically for the Paralympics while Pistorius has been competing far more over the last month as well as dealing with substantially more media commitments.<br />
<br />
Pistorius will always be remembered as the 'Blade Runner', the first double amputee to compete at the Olympics. The moment he shared with Kirani James following the Olympic 400m semi-final will not be quickly forgotten, however it was only a matter of time before someone else reached the perch Pistorius has solely occupied for so long. The debate over regulating blades will continue and it's definitely something the IPC and IAAF need to investigate, as technology improves regulations need to be set to ensure a level playing field. The place for that debate however is not after a Paralympic final. Simply it takes the spotlight away from those competing and I would have thought Pistorius would know exactly how it feels to be discussed for your adherence to rules as opposed to your athletic achievements.<br />
<br />
Sour grapes? Possibly. It's the first time I've seen Pistorius speak in that way although it's also the first time he's been beaten on a world stage, there are no other interviews in which to compare. I believe he was simply beaten by a better athlete last night and his inaccurate comments were a result of emotions running high and giving an interview without really thinking about the impact his words would have.<br />
<br />
As always I'm interested to hear any other views points or opinions on the matter, it's seems likely this will be a topic of debate for some time.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-59093324927911707142012-08-30T15:31:00.000+01:002012-08-30T15:33:19.512+01:00How can a film 73 years old be re-released in high definition?<br />
The UK is now just weeks away from turning off the analogue TV signal for good, digital it seems is the way forward. Digital TV requires less broadcast transmission power, enables more channels to be broadcast in a narrower frequency band and most important of all it can transmit higher resolutions. I'm pretty sure the average consumer doesn't care about frequency bands or broadcast power, although they probably do care about the quality of the picture they can receive. The majority of the UK will be able to receive at least 3 Freeview HD channels by late October 2012; BBC HD, BBC One HD and Channel 4 HD. Fast forward five years and it's pretty likely that every free to air channel will be broadcast in HD. However, what I found curious was seeing as we're only getting a handful of HD channels in 2012, how can Gone with the Wind be available to buy on blu-ray considering it was first released in 1939?<br />
<br />
It turns out the answer is actually pretty simple, 35mm film.<br />
<br />
35mm film has the ability to record at resolutions far higher than what we refer to today as HD (1920x1080 pixels), basically all you need to do is use a film scanner to sample the analogue image to a digital image. It's actually very similar to a scanner you may have in your home, it reads dots per inch thus giving the resolution. The actual resolution of 35mm film is the subject of much debate although it's high enough to scan images at roughly 8000x4000 pixels (8k), 16 times the resolution of blu-ray. It's generally accepted that 4k (4000x2000) is enough to restore older films, evident by the fantastic quality of older films available for home viewing.<br />
<br />
I look forward to a day when screens capable of 8k resolutions can be mass produced at a reasonable cost for the average consumer. Unfortunately we're probably in for at least a two decade wait.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-91960511029834828222012-08-26T20:41:00.000+01:002012-08-28T22:51:39.829+01:00Is Armstrong telling the truth? 12 people who say otherwise <div>
<br /></div>
It's become abundantly clear over the past few days that the general public and more importantly the cycling world still seems to remain divided on whether Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France. To look at it in the simplest of terms, Lance is either lying or telling the truth. Personally I believe him to be a liar, however if Lance is telling the truth who then must be lying?<br />
<br />
Floyd Landis, the man who started the ball rolling has arguably lost the most by coming forward. In speaking out against Lance he had to admit that he did dope during the 2006 Tour de France and as a result defrauded 1800 people out of half a million dollars through the fairness for Floyd fund. Landis agreed this week to repay the sum within three years in an attempt to avoid prison time. The former USPS rider spoke of Lance's EPO and testosterone use, how Lance had helped him obtain and use doping products, how he and Lance had received blood transfusions during races and how Lance used to boast about being powerful enough to have a 2001 positive for EPO covered up. <br />
<br />
Tyler Hamilton told his story on the US show 60 minutes and in doing so he admitted doping to win a gold medal in Athens 2004. Despite testing positive for a blood transfusion Tyler had kept that gold medal because his B sample had been improperly stored. Tyler had been home and dry but his own personal guilt and a subpoena to testify before a grand jury during Lance's federal trial changed everything. He came clean, admitted doping and told how he'd seen Armstrong receive blood transfusions and inject himself with EPO.<br />
<br />
Armstrong's former Masseuse Emma O'Reilly stated that she had lent him makeup to cover up needle marks, helped him dispose of syringes and picked up packages containing doping products. O'Reilly also told of how team officials had panicked over Armstrong's positive test for steroids during the 1999 tour, she explained how the team doctor had forged a backdated prescription for a steroid based cream for saddle sores.<br />
<br />
Mike Anderson was a mechanic for Armstrong between 2002 and 2004, their relationship took a turn for the worse when Anderson discovered a box of Androstenedione while cleaning Armstrong's bathroom. Anderson was terminated soon after and refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement.<br />
<br />
In 2006 Frankie and Betsy Andreu testified to have heard Armstrong tell doctors in 1996 that he had taken EPO, growth hormone and steroids. Their testimony was part of the SCA case against Armstrong, SCA didn't want to pay a $5 million bonus for Tour de France wins. Frankie Andreu also admitted to using EPO to prepare for the 1999 tour, Armstrong's first victory in the race. Andreu stated that he was introduced to doping in 1995 while riding for Armstrong's former Motorola team, he revealed that while he did not see Armstrong using PEDs at Motorola he was confident he was doping.<br />
<br />
Greg Lemond was the first American to win the Tour de France and in the beginning a Lance fan. In 2001 Lemond learned that Lance was working with Michelle Ferrari, a sports trainer who famously once said EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice. Lemond stated that he was disappointed Lance was working with Ferrari, a month later Lemond issued an apology and said Lance's performances were the result of hard work and dedication. Three years later Lemond revealed that he had been forced to issue an apology after being threatened. Armstrong warned Lemond to keep quiet or he would find ten people to say that he had taken EPO and that he would destroy his relationship with Trek Bicycles. Lemond's own brand of bicycles were made by Trek and a breakdown of that relationship would have ruined a profitable business.<br />
<br />
In addition to the seven aforementioned individuals numerous ex-teammates have given evidence to USADA, I don't want to speculate as to what they might have said however I'm sure the testimonies will emerge over time. Some of those ex-teammates include George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Jonathan Vaughters, Christian Van de Velde and David Zabriske. At the very least all five have either seen Armstrong take or discuss taking PEDs, otherwise I doubt they would be on USADA's witness list.<br />
<br />
Here we have twelve individuals that according to Lance are lying, and telling a very complicated and coordinated lie at that. It just doesn't seem plausible to me and almost everyone of the 12 is in a worse position as a result of telling the truth. In my opinion it's largely why Lance has kept his doping secret quiet from the general public since 1999, what did people have to gain by speaking against him and telling the truth? This was a powerful man, someone who went for private bike rides with the US president and described himself as a friend of Nicolas Sarkozy. Greg Lemond is a good example of why people kept quiet, one phone call from Lance and he could have destroyed Greg's livelihood, honestly that's a man that I'd think twice about messing with.<br />
<br />
Finally to all the Lance believers; you're free to think what you wish however I'd be interested to hear why you've decided to ignore these 12 individuals. Recovering from cancer and returning to professional sport is admirable but it doesn't make you a saint, it doesn't excuse defrauding millions of people.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-44938055956809360992012-08-18T14:13:00.000+01:002012-08-27T08:14:13.837+01:00Euthanasia and Tony Nicklinson<br />
I've been following the story of 'Locked-in Syndrome' sufferer Tony Nicklinson since March of this year. A stroke during a business trip to Athens in 2005 left him paralysed from the neck down and as a result can only communicate via a computer that tracks eye movement. Tony has been campaigning for the right to die and I was genuinely saddened to hear this week that he had lost his High Court case.<br />
<br />
Quantifying quality of life is very difficult, ultimately it comes down to each individual and how they perceive their own existence. Tony Nicklinson believes he has no quality of life and that his life is a living nightmare, I have to say I agree. Tony can't dress, feed or wash himself, he needs 24 hour care and can't communicate fast enough to participate in a simple conversation. Another daily issue Tony faces is that he's unable to scratch himself. It seems rather trivial but next time you have an itch try and see how long you can leave it without scratching, imagine seven years of that.<br />
<br />
I'm aware that this case isn't about Tony committing suicide, it's about enabling a third party to under the eyes of the law commit murder. The argument that a ruling in Tony's favour would set a precedent for future cases giving too much power to doctor's is understandable. However if the system was regulated by the courts it would take the decision out of doctors hands.Tony is of completely sound mind and to condemn him to another 20 years of hell just to make a point about the value of life seems backward to me.<br />
<br />
I'd be interested to hear your views on this whether for or against.<br />
<br />
*UPDATE*<br />
<br />
Tony Nicklinson died at approximately 10am on Wednesday the 22nd of August after refusing food and contracting pneumonia.<br />
<br />
The law prohibited Tony receiving a lethal injection to end his life, instead he had to spend his last week in pain, coughing relentlessly, his body screaming out for nourishment and ultimately the sensation of his bronchial tubes filling with fluid. Abiding the law essentially increased the sensations of a crippled man's hell for fear of setting a precedent. Decide for yourself if that's right or wrong, it's not a difficult decision in my eyes.<br />
<br />
I hope Tony's case will put euthanasia back in the spotlight and encourage parliament to consider change.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-9772349296539338152012-08-16T19:43:00.001+01:002012-08-17T13:05:45.361+01:00How expensive is it to fuel a commercial jet?<br />
The cost of fuelling a car in the UK has risen substantially over the past number of years, as recently as 2002 a litre of petrol was just 69.9p. Fuel has become so expensive that I've altered my driving style quite a bit. I was able to work out that by using a little less right foot I could improve my average mpg by 15 thus saving myself roughly 5.7p per mile. If I was to drive a pretty average 14,000 miles a year that extra 15 mpg would save me just short of £800, the equivalent of 132 hours working on minimum wage. I also tried to work out whether a slightly longer commute that avoided hills would be more efficient than the shorter hillier route although I don't really want to discuss that in this post. What I would like to discuss is how much it costs to fuel a commercial jet, I think you may be quite surprised.<br />
<br />
Aviation fuel as of Monday August 13th was priced at $3.13 per US gallon, compared to a gallon of petrol it's not very expensive. It's also usually of a higher quality than what you'd use in your car and often contains additives to help prevent icing or explosions. Now that we know the price it's pretty simple to work out how much it's going to cost to fill the fuel tanks of a commercial jet, I'll give examples for a few different kinds of aircraft starting with the medium range A320.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you've ever flown with Easyjet or Aer Lingus chances are you've been on an A320. It's a good aircraft for short to medium range flights and can be just as efficient on a 30 minute flight as a 4 hour flight. However just because it's efficient doesn't mean it's cheap. The standard A320 has a maximum fuel capacity of 6,400 gallons meaning you'll need $20,000 to fill it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Boeing 777-200LR hold the record for the longest non-stop flight by a commercial airliner. On the 9th of November 2005 it flew eastward from Hong-Kong to London, a distance of 13,423 miles. It has reduced cargo space thanks to three auxiliary fuel tanks in the cargo hold and has the ability to connect almost any two airports in the world. Those auxiliary tanks help achieve a maximum fuel capacity of 47,890 gallons costing roughly $150,000 to fill.<br />
<br />
Now onto the big one, the Airbus A380. The A380 holds the record for the world's biggest passenger jet, it's so large that a number of airports have had to alter their existing infrastructure to accommodate it. It takes 2.75km of runway to reach a safe take-off speed, is likely almost twice the height of your house and can accommodate 853 passengers in a single class configuration. Unsurprisingly as the world's biggest jet it also has one of the biggest fuel capacities. The A380 can hold a maximum of 84,600 gallons giving the owner a $265,000 bill every time the aircraft needs to re-fuel. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
$265,000 for one tank, fuelling my car seems pretty cheap now. <br />
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-59096231784860007282012-08-11T19:09:00.001+01:002012-08-17T13:06:29.491+01:00How do you set the entire earth on fire?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">was a large scale </span><span style="color: black;">mass extinction</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> of animal and plant species, most notably the </span>dinosaurs<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> in geologically speaking a short period of time. T</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">he primary cause of extinction was an </span>asteroid<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> </span>impact<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> so large that it severely disrupted the earth's </span>biosphere<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">. Such an impact would create a </span><span style="line-height: 19.196969985961914px;">dust cloud</span><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> big enough to block out sunlight for a number of years, fill the stratosphere with sulphuric acid aerosols and during the hours </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.196969985961914px;">immediately after the impact</span><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> everything that can burn will. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Think about that, everything that can burn will. How?<br /><br />Firstly it's important to understand that the asteroid in question was about 10miles in diameter, so big that when the bottom hit the ground the top hadn't yet entered the bulk of the atmosphere. Picture that, the bottom of the asteroid is touching the ground and the top is up around 30,000ft with commercial airliners. It really would be something amazing to see although I'd prefer not to considering it would mean I was seconds from death. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Now that we know the size of the asteroid we can begin to work out what's going to happen once it hits the ground. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Sound travels through granite at about 5,950m/s which is a lot slower than the speed of an incoming asteroid </span><span style="line-height: 19.196969985961914px;">travelling</span><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> at about 27,000m/s. This means that when the asteroid hits, the back of the asteroid will hit the ground before the </span><span style="line-height: 19.196969985961914px;">shock wave</span><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> can get to it. It'll smash all the way into the earth's surface. This means nearly all of the </span><span style="line-height: 19.196969985961914px;">energy created by the impact is added to matter beneath the ground surface, for the asteroid in question that's about 1x10^25 joules. That's enough energy to melt about 100 times the asteroid's own mass or 5x10^18kg of rock, a small amount of that rock will vaporize instantly and travel about 60miles into the air, maybe higher.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Now you've got trillions of tons of lava raining down on everything from a height of 60miles. The earth has roughly 6x10^14kg of carbon in it's biomass which will burn in a matter of hours.<br /><br />Everything that can burn will. </span></span></span><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-1987821044082460342012-08-09T18:19:00.001+01:002012-08-17T13:08:46.531+01:00What comes after a terabyte?<br />
I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes and even terabytes as they become more common. A terabyte is probably the largest unit of information known to most people, for example I have just over 2 terabytes of storage space on my home pc. That's enough for 2000 songs, 400 high definition movies and roughly 4000 episodes of various tv shows. To be honest I have more digital media than I could ever have time to watch, just the movies and tv shows alone would take 220 days to watch if I only took breaks to eat and sleep. For the average consumer two terabytes of storage space on a home pc is going to be more than enough, most of the space will likely never be used. However, what comes after a terabyte?<br />
<br />
That honour falls to a petabyte, followed an exabyte, zettabyte and finally the largest unit we've named, a yottabyte.<br />
<br />
I've already explained how much data you can store on 2 terabytes, a petabyte is a thousand times larger than one terabyte. It's pretty big, so big that you could store every single piece of data used to render the 3D CGI effects for Avatar. Interestingly the human brain's ability to store memories is roughly the equivalent of 2.5 petabytes of binary data.<br />
<br />
As you can see a petabyte is pretty big, so how much bigger is an exabyte, zettabyte or yottabyte?<br />
<br />
An exabyte for example (a thousand times larger than a petabyte) is roughly the amount of traffic that passes through the entire internet on a daily basis and 5 exabytes are enough write down all the words ever spoken by humans.<br />
<br />
A zettabyte is unimaginably large, it's a thousand times bigger than an exabyte and the amount of information a few zettabytes can hold is truly mindbogglingly. Roughly half a zettabyte is enough to hold the entire internet and as of January 2012 no storage system has achieved one zettabyte of information. A zetabyte is so large that if you had just 42 available you could store all human speech ever spoken.<br />
<br />
Finally a yotabyte, or a quadrillion gigabytes is so large than no storage system has even achieved one thousandth of a yotabyte. In fact the internet combined with every hard drive in existence wouldn't even be a thousandth of a yotabyte. There is no doubt in my mind that one day a yotabyte storage device will be created, however it's likely we'll create one before we've generated enough digital media to fill one. <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-29519749975108085252012-08-08T16:30:00.001+01:002012-08-17T13:22:24.685+01:00How easy is it to beat UKA's whereabouts system?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Eleven days ago Kazakhstan's Alexander Vinokourov won the men's cycling road race in emphatic fashion. Just over a week later GB's <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16px;">Christine Ohuruogu won a silver medal in the women's 400m. Both athletes have served suspensions, one for blood transfusions, the other for missing three out of competition drug tests. Vino was announced on the 6 o'clock news as the former drug cheat who ruined British hero Mark Cavendish's dream of Olympic gold, </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu's suspension is rarely mentioned and I'd be surprised if the majority of the British public even knew she had served a ban. </span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu is portrayed as a victim of the system, a role model and an ambassador for British Athletics, Vino on the other hand is portrayed as a cheat and the villain. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu a victim of the system? The system is victim of </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that </span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu was using performance enhancing drugs at the time when she missed those three out of competition tests. Missing out of competition tests on purpose is a strategy used by numerous athletes in track and field. This strategy allows them to reap the benefits of PEDs outside of competition thus eliminating the need to use 'heavy' products during competition when the likelihood of being tested is much much greater. I'd like to outline how easy it is to beat UKA's whereabouts system and how athletes manipulate it to continue doping. I'm going to use the method Victor Conte devised as an example, </span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu was likely using a similar system. Athletes can only miss three out of competition tests in an 18 month period, unfortunately for </span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16px;">Ohuruogu </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">she ran out of tests to miss.</span><br /><br /><span style="line-height: 16px;">For this program the athlete will be taking seven banned products: THG, Testosterone Cream, EPO, HGH, Insulin, Modafinil and Cytomel. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>Firstly the THG would be taken two days a week on a three week on, one week off cycle preferably on the heaviest weight training days during the off season. The athlete would place 30 IUs under the tongue, this would accelerate healing and tissue repair. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Secondly, the testosterone cream would be mainly used during the off season</span><span style="background-color: white;">. The athlete would rub the cream onto his/her forearm two days a week using a </span><span style="background-color: white;">dosage containing 50mg of testosterone and 2.5mg of epitestosterone. This dosage would offset the suppression of endogenous testosterone and accelerate recovery. This product would be used in cycles of three weeks on, one week off.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The EPO would be used three days a week during the first 2 weeks of a doping cycle and once a week afterwards as maintenance using 4000 IU per injection. EPO boosts the red blood cell count and enhances oxygen uptake, this enables athlete to cope with a much deeper training load during the off season.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HGH would be used three nights a week with each injection containing 4.5units of growth hormone. Similar to the testosterone the HGH would help with recovery from heavy weight sessions. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Insulin should be used after heavy weight sessions during the off season. </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">Three units of fast-acting insulin would be injected immediately after the workout sessions together with a sports drink that contained 30 grams of dextrose, 30 grams of whey protein and 3 grams of creatine. This cocktail would replenish glycogen, re-synthesize ATP and promote protein synthesis and muscle growth.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">The Modafinil would be used one hour before competition in the form of a 200mg tablet. It will decease fatigue, enhance mental alertness and improve reaction time.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">Cytomel should also be used before competition to improve the athlete's metabolic rate. It should be taken in the form of two 25mg tablets one hour before competition.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">Now that I've outlined products the athlete would be taking, how do they avoid getting caught? Most will use the 'duck and dive' technique, it works something like this.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">Firstly the athlete fills his/her own voicemail and message inbox so they can claim not to have received messages from testers. Secondly they will put incorrect information on their whereabouts from, meaning they can still train without being interrupted by an unannounced tester. Once the athlete has completed these steps they can start using the testosterone, HGH and other drugs on a short three week cycle. Once the three week cycle has finished the athlete can wait a few days until they know they will test negative and resume training at their normal facility, or the facility listed on the whereabouts form. </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">UKA randomly tests each athlete approximately two times a year out of competition, if the athlete misses three he/she will receive a sanction. This means an athlete can continue to dope using the 'duck and dive' approach until they have missed two tests. It's a pretty good trade, two </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.200000762939453px;">supposedly</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.200000762939453px;"> innocent mistakes in the eyes of UKA enable the athlete to 'prepare' in the off season for their big objectives i.e. Olympic games or World Championships. It is my opinion that Ohuruogu was using this system and as a result missed three out of competition tests.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />On a final note, if you think it wouldn't be possible to take the cocktail of drugs I've mentioned and avoid testing positive think again. This is the exact system Dwain Chambers admitted to using for two years until he was caught. Scarily he only tested positive for the THG, all the other substances went undetected. During these two years Chambers won two European titles, ran 9.87 for the 100m and 20.27 for the 200m, all heavily drug assisted. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-45572583526757074932012-08-05T23:47:00.001+01:002012-08-17T13:14:48.404+01:00Is being indoors enough to protect you from lightning?<br />
Lightning is a random atmospheric electrostatic discharge, this discharge is due to massive unbalanced electrical charges building up in the atmosphere. It is without a doubt one of the most powerful forces of nature killing 24,000 people a year. A force powerful enough to reach you indoors if you're in contact with any conductor that originates from outside. For example, if lightning hits a phone line outside your house the current will travel to every phone connected to the external line. The current will continue to travel through anyone holding the phone at the time of the strike.<br />
<br />
Really any electrical item has the potential to connect you with the lightning. Your television, computer and hairdryer all have the potential to disrupt your body's electrical signals and ultimately stop your heart and brain. It's only since wireless internet and laptops with good battery life that we've been able to continue browsing the web or watching television during lightning strikes.<br />
<br />
Lightning has also been known to strike the exterior of a house and travel along the interior metal pipes, if you're touching anything connected to those pipes that current will travel through you. This isn't as big an issue as it once was, mainly due to the cheaper PVC pipes now used for indoor plumbing. It's nice to know we can now answer the call of nature safely during a lightning storm, I was losing sleep over that issue.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-38179902351317961232012-07-30T19:20:00.000+01:002012-08-17T13:16:25.143+01:00Does Swimming Have A Doping Problem? Probably not.<br />
Maybe like a lot of you, I've been watching the Olympics over the past few days. In particular the cycling road races and the early stages of the swimming competitions. The swimming has really caught my attention. For a sport that requires such physical fitness, why is it almost untarnished by doping scandals? The only scandals I'm aware of are the Chinese in the 90s and Ian Thorpe's alleged use of EPO, and that's nothing when compared to the scandals cycling or athletics have suffered. Is it because swimming is free from doping?<br />
<br />
It's unlikely, I don't believe any sport is completely free from doping. If there is an opportunity to cheat, a small percentage of athletes will take that opportunity. In my opinion the percentage of athletes who do dope depends on the environment they're in, for example a cyclist in the mid 90s would be far more likely to dope than a cyclist nowadays. Better testing and the blood passport program is a factor but in my opinion the main catalyst for change in professional cycling has been the environment, the 'Omerta'* no longer exists to the extent it once did.<br />
<br />
However I really don't believe swimming has these issues that have plagued other sports, mainly because doping seems to be far less beneficial in swimming than say cycling or athletics. To understand this better we need to look at the average age of world records in swimming and athletics and compare the two (for both we will use the close of the Beijing Olympics).<br />
<br />
Firstly swimming: The average age of a men's world record is 1 year, 1 month, the average for women is only 8 months, out of 32 combined events only 4 have records older than 3 years.<br />
<br />
Secondly athletics: The average age of a men's world record is 8 years, 11 months (Bolt breaking a 12 year old record played a large part in that), the average for women is far longer at 14 years, 9 months (22 times older than the women's swimming records!).<br />
<br />
Swimming doesn't follow the same pattern at all and I've no doubt the swimmers of the 80s and pre EPO test era were doping to a similar extent as the track and field athletes. It just means that doping in swimming doesn't increase performance to anywhere near the extent it does in athletics, largely because swimming is such an inefficient activity. The best swimmers are only about 7% efficient, so a drug that improves strength and power would have a far smaller effect because most of the strength and power gained is lost to the inefficiency of the stroke. Swimming only started to see world records tumble with the introduction of the 'speed suits', better technology in pools and an all round better understanding of how to swim efficiently.<br />
<br />
When you're swimming fast improving how efficiently you move through the water would be far more beneficial than doping. This can be clearly seen after the farcical 2009 swimming world championships where almost every world record was destroyed. Soon after, the suits were banned and the sport went almost 2 years without a world record. <br />
<br />
I'm not saying that doping doesn't exist in swimming, it just seems that doping is far less prevalent than you would expect of a sport in which world records were broken at will. For a sport that is so dependent on efficiency, it may be more beneficial to improve your stroke than improve your red blood cell count.<br />
<br />
However that's not to say some athletes don't do both.........<br />
<br />
<br />
*Omerta - Term used in cycling to describe the wall of silence surrounding doping, you simply do not discuss doping to an outsider.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-4364162898403748572012-07-07T12:15:00.000+01:002012-08-17T13:17:33.116+01:00How many helium balloons is it safe to buy a child?<div>
<br /></div>
Yesterday I was reading a few articles I'd put in my favorites folder over the past few years, one in particular that you might remember was the 'Balloon Boy' hoax. It got me thinking, could you buy enough balloons at say a fair ground to accidentally get a child airborne?<br />
<br />
First we need to know that it takes roughly one litre of helium to lift one gram so to lift a child weighting 25kg we would need 25,000 litres of helium, that's quite a lot. If we assume that an average helium filled balloon is 25cm in diameter we can use the equation 4/3 x pi x r x r x r to find the volume.<br />
<br />
By taking pi to 2 decimal places and the radius as 12.5cm we get:<br />
<br />
4/3 x pi x 12.5 x 12.5 x 12.5 = 8,177.08 cubic centimetres, which is just over 8 litres.<br />
<br />
If we assume that the balloon and the string weight 2 grams, each balloon could lift just 6 grams in addition to its own weight. For your child that weights 25kg you'd need 4,167 balloons and roughly £8,500 in cash to lift him or her off the ground, probably not something anyone will do by accident.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-10133605742783822892012-07-03T21:32:00.000+01:002012-08-17T13:19:47.162+01:00Why did Alcatraz close?<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Alcatraz was one of the most successful prisons ever built in terms of preventing prisoners from carrying out successful escape attempts. Although the prison itself was at the time one of the most secure facilities in North America it was the icy water of the San Francisco Bay that prevented prisoners from reaching freedom. If the prison was so successful, why was it closed?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">During the 29 years Alcatraz was a Federal prison it held claim to an almost 'perfect' record, 36 prisoners made 14 escape attempts with two men trying to escape twice. Of those 23 were caught, six were killed from gunfire during their escape attempt, two drowned and five are listed as "missing and presumed drowned". The only reason Alcatraz can't claim a 'perfect' record is because there is a small possibility that the five "missing and presumed drowned" are still alive, although this is unlikely. <span style="background-color: white;">Alcatraz held many famous prisoners from Al Capone to James Bulger, usually prisoners sent to Alcatraz were ones who presented a serious security risk or who had caused trouble at other prisons. One prisoner held there that I found interesting was Bumpy Johnson who was depicted in the Ridley Scott film, American Gangster.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So why if Alcatraz was so secure and a prison capable of holding the most dangerous inmates was it closed? Ironically salt water forced the closure of Alcatraz, the very ingredient that made the prison so secure in the first place.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Alcatraz used salt water to flush the toilets, salt water contains magnesium chloride, sulfate ions and hydrogen carbonate ions that will attack concrete to a certain degree. Although what really starts to corrode in a concrete structure is any of the steel substructure within, the main line of defence in preventing prisoners from tunneling through concrete walls. Usually the steel inside concrete will react with it's interior alkaline environment, this forms a film that protects the steel. However when salt water soaks into concrete the chloride and sulfate ions weaken the film, once the film is breached the corrosion process begins to work on the steel itself. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Over time the concrete walls of Alcatraz became so weak that it was possible to tunnel through them with only a spoon, three prisoners did just this to escape in June 1962. Their bodies were never found and as a result the US Marshall’s office is still investigating the case, a case which will remain open on all three until their 100th birthday's. <span style="background-color: white;">After that attempt in 1962 it started to become apparent that Alcatraz's walls were no longer secure enough for a Federal penitentiary, that and it was over three times more expensive to operate than the average US prison ($10 a day compared to $3 a day). As a result Alcatraz was closed on March 21st 1963.</span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It seems ironic that the very thing that made Alcatraz so secure was what ultimately led to it not being secure enough.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2885983883115410436.post-39118233788688529532012-06-29T14:24:00.000+01:002012-08-17T20:45:50.595+01:00Northern Ireland, is it time for water charges?<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you live in the UK you've almost certainly either heard of or been affected by flash flooding over the past 2 days. The infrastructure that's supposed to deal with excess water and avoid the situations seen across the country just hasn't been adequate resulting in widespread calls for better and more efficient drainage systems. I want to focus on Belfast, Northern Ireland and why it's in a unique situation compared to the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland is unique because it does not pay water charges, is it time for a change?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 12px; text-align: left;">£</span>135 million pounds, that's the cost to bring Northern Ireland's water and sewage systems up to minimum EU standards. The fact that Northern Ireland needs that size of an investment shows just how poor the existing system is and goes a long way in explaining the scenes over the past number of days, but where will that money come from without introducing water charges?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The simple answer is money would have to be taken away from other projects in the Department for Regional Development's budget or if necessary re-allocate funds from other departments. Saying that it's highly unlikely that money would be taken from other departments, Northern Ireland is financially strained in almost every government department and taking money from schools, hospitals, the emergency services and other areas to prevent flooding is never going to happen meaning money would have to come from the existing DRD budget. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The DRD has an annual budget of <span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">£926m, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">£342m of which is for water and sewage services. It seems like a lot but remember that the</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">£342m for water and sewage doesn't include the</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 12px; text-align: left;">£</span><span style="background-color: white;">135m required to improve the existing system. The question is whether Northern Ireland is willing to sacrifice things like better roads and resurfacing programmes to make up the additional money? I've no doubt that anyone with flood damage would say that's a fair trade but in reality it isn't. I don't want to go into a lot of a detail as to why it isn't a fair trade but for example sacrificing better roads would affect everything from the already</span></span><span style="background-color: white;"> ailing economy to response times for emergency services, from tourism revenue to unemployment levels, the list goes on. The money has to come from another source, water charges.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">As of 2011 Northern Ireland had around 720,000 households, if each was to pay the proposed </span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">£</span><span style="background-color: white;">400 in water charges the DRD could generate upwards of </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">£</span><span style="background-color: white;">250m a year in addition to their existing budget. That would be more than enough to cover a substantial upgrade to the system and more importantly keep it up to date for the foreseeable future.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Gone are the days of direct rule when parliament would throw money at Northern Ireland in an attempt to further the peace process, the money has to come from within. Political parties have used water charges to gain votes, it helped their cause in the short term but ultimately isn't a sustainable position long term. Northern Ireland has a simple choice, introduce water charges or get used to the scenes of the last few days because unless something changes it's going to happen again. </span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
*Article was written on the 29th of June 2012 following flash floods in Belfast*<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06579936595139485228noreply@blogger.com1