O/T Salisbury poisoning

[yorkshireborn]

Advice from Chief Medical Officer to those possibly contaminated [restaurant users amongst others]
"Wash your clothes" as though the danger was minimal Is she having a laugh?
Sure looks minimal to me

if it was anything the amount used on the ex commie was very little he would have been dead within 10 mins if it was done right.

[Exiletyke]

Not sure I understand that comment YB

[Exiletyke]

Perhaps the Chief Medical Officer's advice is based upon an objective assessment of the evidence made available to her, rather than looking at media images of people wearing chemical protection clothing?

Perhaps her advice was even based, in part, upon what the people wearing chemical protection clothing found?

You just couldn't wait to disagree could you ?
Imagine for a moment that you were a resident of Salisbury Kerr & you had been to that area in question & seeing all the precautions taken with vehicles being "mothballed" & taken away on low loaders & hundreds of personnel attired in serious protective clothing with areas being cordonned off would you have been happy with the advice given to "wash your clothes"? one week later [note advice to seal & double bag your clothes or other items]
Even your beloved Daily Mail is unhappy with the advice


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/new...h-clothes.html

[KerrAvon]

I disagree with you, because I think you are wrong.

As you share the Daily Mail's unhappiness with the advice given, answer these questions:

1. What is known about how was the nerve agent administered to the victims?
2. What is the degradation rate for that nerve agent in the environment?
3. What advice was given to the Chief Medical Officer by the chemical weapons experts who are undoubtedly involved in the investigation?
4. How much of the agent needs to be administered to produce a harmful effect?

It seems to me that you must know the answers to all those questions to be able to make the criticisms that you are doing. Making them from a position of ignorance would be foolish, wouldn't it?

[Exiletyke]

"I disagree with you, because I think you are wrong. "
No you disagree because it's what you are on this earth for

Try answering my question or are you not able?
Or you can always seek refuge in just posing another question as is your usual practice
I take it you would be happy with the advice

PS another snidey comment thinly disguised
"Making them from a position of ignorance would be foolish, wouldn't it?"

[KerrAvon]

I assumed that your question was rhetorical. Of course I wouldn't be happy if there had been a chemical attack in the town where I lived and might be nervous about advice to wash my clothes, but that nervousness would have no bearing upon the validity or otherwise of that advice.

My questions numbered 1 to 4 were rhetorical, because of course you don't know the answers to them. My question about it being foolish to criticise that advice without knowing the answers was not.

So come on, I've answered your question, so you answer mine.

[Exiletyke]

I agree it was not rhetorical it was simply Snidey
You really do let your aler ego get the better of you don't you? {non rhetorical}


LOOP

[KerrAvon]

So do have an answer to my question? I'm sorry that you believe it to be 'snidey'. Would you prefer it if I were to rephrase it as: 'How can you criticise the advice if you don't know the factual and scientific basis upon which it was based?

[SBRed48]

I reckon the one in sowerby bridge shares his dashing good looks and can kill a man 32 ways with a slice of haslet. Best thing about 007 is that he hasn’t got a dog. That’s why he traps all the honeys.

Av still got in my 007 files that promise tha made at 10.35 on 2nd Feb 2018 that tha wud tek in thi sister-in-law's dog forra week if we went darn.

[red flagged]

Until you know what the hazard is you don't know what advice to give to deal with it. Those engaged in the investigation will of course wear full PPE until they know what it is.