I think my point counters your statement "I know there is nothing to poison anyone in my cars exhaust fumes."
Mind, as that states "I know" I have to admit that I don't know what you actually do or don't know. But you do now appear to accept that carbon dioxide is a poison - so what was your point?
Except carbon dioxide isn't a poison. It may suffocate you by displacing the oxygen (as might nitrogen) but it isn't poisonous. Carbon monoxide is poisonous and there used to be quite a bit of this in car exhaust fumes (a lot less now).
Overall, most years, yes. I would say on average, that I win an amount between say £100 and £1500 perhaps once every three or four months. I have had prizes up to almost £7k when I won a share of a national 'pot'. But it's not all about the money either. I would be quite happy to come out even, or indeed stand a reasonable loss as 'payment' for the entertainment and social angle provided. I also go to Vegas most years, and same thing. It's rare that I come away losing, even after factoring in the cost of the flights, and the hotel, which you can get for next to nothing if you 'work the system'. Even so, I would not be disappointed to come away from there down by a reasonable amount as a 'cost' for the entertainment provided.
But equally, there are many other examples of the other side of the coin. Over the years, my wife and I have run a number of small businesses, and it is essential to keep 'reinventing' yourself if you wish to keep any venture 'fresh' and attractive to its customers. But it's a very wearing process, and just one of the factors that I suggested might well be the last straw that causes an owner to say "enough already", and retire or throw in the towel. No person in their right mind is going to buy such a business when they look at the books and see that it has been seriously affected by some nearby influence. Well, I guess that there might be some, but only ones that are *really* up for a challenge.
An external influence doesn't have to be competitive to affect a business's potential for success, which is what I was suggesting with the pub access analogy. The smoking ban is a government enforced external influence, (and a bit of a 'bandwagon' one at that, I suspect) over which the club owners have no control.
Trust me, the owners of bingo halls are not stupid. In my one, they have tried all manner of things to attract people back in. They recently had a £2 bar promotion. They have drafted in a proper chef to improve the food, which was quite good already. They have taken the floor space from the bar area that they closed, and made it into an enclosed casino, accessible from outside. They have introduced new games. They have built an outside smoking area, complete with heaters, tabletop bingo (the very fast games that are played during the intervals between sessions) and even put some slot machines out there. But, for all their efforts, it would seem that this is an exercise in sticking plasters ...
Unfortunately, having been an attendee for many years, and seen them go through all sorts of changes, this time, I have every confidence that one day soon, I'm going to turn up there to find chains across the doors ...
Actually, I hate the way this government feel it necessary to interfere in everyone's lives. There are other ways that this could have been handled. If you go to Vegas, everyone smokes in the casinos, but there is no problem from a smoky atmosphere, because they have proper air conditioning, that works. Like it or not, logical or not, smoking does appear to be core to the business of bingo, and if you remove people's ability to do it in those premises, then it is going to cause the business to falter. I have no particular feelings about passive smoking representing a health risk. It is well known that smoking damages the health of smokers, so it would be reasonable to assume that it at least doesn't do any good to nearby breathers, but it really didn't cause a problem in my club. The air conditioning took care of it, such that in the non smoking area, there was no trace, and as I said, as an ex-smoker myself, I'm now quite sensitive to it.
Bob,
Will you be telling the West Midlands Poisons Unit at City Hospital, Birmingham that they have got it all wrong? I believe that:
Most often, carbon dioxide operates as an asphyxiant.
Carbon Dioxide is, nonetheless, a poison.
"Carbon dioxide is a physiologically important gas, produced by the body as a result of cellular metabolism. It is widely used in the food industry in the carbonation of beverages, in fire extinguishers as an 'inerting' agent and in the chemical industry. Its main mode of action is as an asphyxiant, although it also exerts toxic effects at cellular level. At low concentrations, gaseous carbon dioxide appears to have little toxicological effect. At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death. Solid carbon dioxide may cause burns following direct contact. If it is warmed rapidly, large amounts of carbon dioxide are generated, which can be dangerous, particularly within confined areas. The management of carbon dioxide poisoning requires the immediate removal of the casualty from the toxic environment, the administration of oxygen and appropriate supportive care. In severe cases, assisted ventilation may be required. Dry ice burns are treated similarly to other cryogenic burns, requiring thawing of the tissue and suitable analgesia. Healing may be delayed and surgical intervention may be required in severe cases."
Actually I think they were stupid, really stupid.
They looked at their customers and decided that they would allow smoking. This meant that a good 60% of potential customers (non smokers) didn't want to go. (The separate areas *do not* work, so forget them.) That included most families. When the no smoking laws came out they only had the smaller number of smokers and they desert like rats when they can't get their fix.
Their best bet is to have outdoor bingo, shame they need the space for cars.
Its all a bit too late, they needed to make non smokers into bingo players years ago but they were too stupid and wanted the extra bit of profit they got from a smoker.
Certainly is, we've got some very interesting metabolic responses to carbon dioxide. One of them is that an increase in both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide acts to have an increased effect compared to comparable quantities of the monoxide alone. "Closed room" poisonings (Korean suicides with charcoal stoves) are often fatal owing to this combined effect when a similar quantity of carbon monoxide in isolation (Western gas fire accidents) alone would have been survivable.
Interesting - are you extra-lucky, or something else?
cheers, clive
As long as I learn something new every day... :o)
Many, many years ago I worked in a hospital and was initially surprised to see carbon dioxide as a component of the anaesthetics trolleys. I asked, I read, I investigated.
Since then I have forgotten all the detail - so used PubMed - but remembered something. I was surprised at the time.
Andy's "closed room" bit was entirely new to me.
No he isn't, all gamblers win over a period of time, just ask any of them.
Carbon dioxide is not poisonous. In te same way that water is not posionous, but either filling your lungs *to the exclusion of oxygen* will kill you.
Carbon monoxide IS poisonous, It wll kill you even WITH sufficuent supply of oxygen.
Just hot air,like you do?
I wont, but it doesn't surprise me that an NHS hospital doesn't know the difference between and asphyxiant and a poison.
I don't consider myself to be particularly lucky, or not. My wife, OTOH, seems very lucky both at the bingo hall and in Vegas. She wins more than I do. She swears that it's down to attitude as in if you don't think that you are going to win, you won't, which on the face of it seems pure nonsense, I know, but still, she *is* very lucky ...
As far as the bingo goes, the odds of winning are actually quite high. During an evening, there are around 19 treble chance games - that's 57 opportunities to win. With an average house being probably 800 people, that's a 1 in 16 chance of getting at least some prize, and a 1 in 50 chance of it being a 'reasonable' amount. Aside from this, the random number generator is actually anything but, and if it is 'favouring' your books, the odds fall considerably. It is not at all uncommon for the same person to win more than once in a night, or even in a single game. It is very common for a single club to win several games during a multi-club linkup, because the calling club's RNG is favouring the block of books which that winning club had to sell to its members for that particular set of games. It's the same with the tabletop bingo played in the intervals. If you are sitting at a table with a board number of say 326, and all the winners are up in the 7 or
800's, it's not worth putting your money in, coz you ain't gonna win ...As far as Vegas goes, it's a case of being disciplined, and playing the system. If you win, play one more game / coin / hand in case you win again (it's not unusual to get two substantial prizes out of a machine one after the other) then walk away, no matter how lucky you feel. We tend to take an amount of money away with us, that we do not mind losing. Say a coupla hundred dollars each a day. If we win, we put the winnings away, then carry on playing until the original $200 has gone. If you have a bad day, and don't win at all, then when the $200 has gone, walk away and do something else. There's plenty to do and look at, that costs nothing. Overall, this strategy works well, and I think that there has only been a couple of occasions that we have not come back at least even. Even if we come back less than even, we have only spent what we took with us with the intention of gambling, and it has kept us entertained for the 10 days.
Of course the casinos win in the end - it's what they're there for, but if you have a sensible gameplan, and you stick unquestioningly to it, they won't win too often from you.
So yes, in general, we are not deluding ourselves as implied, and we *do* win over a period of time, or at least don't lose, and that period of time is not so long as to be statistically unrealistic.
Arfa
You're now going to smoke 25kg of tobacco inside the car in your attempt to kill yourself? Surely there must be a cheaper way. I'd suggest just driving the car off a cliff.
Interesting that. If you play blackjack a good stratedgy is to increase your bet every time you win, so if you start at £1 & win, bet £2 on the next hand, £4 one the next etc. As soon as you lose go back to the £1 stake.
This apparently comes from millions of computer simulated games which revealed that rather than a cycle of win/lose/win/lose it more likely the outcome will be win/win/win/lose/lose/lose (not necessarily in 3's).
It also means you are using the winnings from the last win to stake the next game.
Seems to work on PC blackjack games.
And then you stop and keep the winnings?
There is a much easier way to do the odds BTW, you just find out how many % they don't payout as prizes,
Bingo is quite good as they pay out about 80% Online bingo is far better as they payout about 96% (no tax?) Slot machines payout about 70% Roulette pays out about 97% (less tax?)
The national lottery pays out about 85% but half of that goes in the "good" causes.
Once upon a time staff in shops would take it upon themselves to understand the product and the customer's needs. They would be able to make recommendations of other products based upon which ones the customer likes. This still exists in food and wine, and I would expect that to be the case for any high margin product. (Many restaurants try new dishes on the waiting staff - both to make sure they've got it right, and to share the expertise)
The guys in the shop - yes I'd expect them to be experts. I'd expect them to know that particular brands are like each other, and others are different in particular ways. And I'd expect them to learn this by trying damaged stock, or having subsidised supplies.
And I'd expect their spouses to be used to the idea that they smelt of smoke. After all, most smokers take it up long before marriage.
In the case of the health problem - I'd expect the shop owner to pay them off (generously enough to make them happy!). You don't want to rub the health risks in the customer's face do you!
So as a visitor I arrive in your pub, and I don't recognise the beers you have on offer. "What's that one like" I say.
There are two kinds of response:
"That one is dark, a bit like Guinness but slightly less bitter"
"Sorry mate, I don't drink".
I'm glad you found a more suitable occupation.
Andy
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
CO preferentially bonds to haemoglobin, so that oxygen can't
... just another form of suffocation, cells don't get the oxygen they require
Actually in this case there's a third - "have a try". I've done this a few times in pubs now.
My sister used to run a pub. She doesn't drink beer at all, but appeared to be very good at keeping what she sold - it was excellent. (suspect she was good at following the sensible rules laid down by the brewery, and possibly more importantly was good at the arranging of quantities and timing.)
So I don't think being teetotal is any barrier to being a barman. And you forgot the fourth response, which is disturbingly common - "Don't know, I drink lager".
clive
That's what I was getting at, yes....
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.