I've not posted on this blog for a while, although I have been updating other pages. One of the reasons is that the corruption of industry-controlled government has been increasing rapidly in recent months and the problem with that is simple but frustrating: it's relatively easy to put out a corrupt document or commission some dodgy research. In effect, you just have to say, "Because we say so." But for anyone concerned about the truth, it's a lot of work to unravel what's really going on, then to refute it.
For example, BEIS/OPSS has recently put out two documents, one all but hidden from sight, concerning the Furniture Regulations. In both cases all they're in effect saying is "We are reviewing the regulations"; that's it - something they've been doing now for 16 years and counting. What they're not saying but which is the truth is, "We are deliberately misleading everyone because we have no intention of every changing these regulations since that would expose us as having been poisoning the public and the environment for many years and we aren't prepared to accept responsibility for that, even thought that means refusing to put things right."
MHCLG has similarly been appointing scientists and awarding contracts without going through the proper tendering process, towards researching the truth of the toxicity of the Grenfell Tower fire. In short, the people they're appointing have close links to the chemical, foam, plastics industries - the very source of the toxicity and who stand to lose massive profits if theit products are found guilty.
All of which causes much unnecessary work for anyone who just wants the public and the environment to be protected and not just serve as profit-points for big business.
I've today added a piece to the Consumer Guide to Buying Furniture section of this website which illustrates the complications when corruption is involved. It's an extract from a BBC programme broadcast in 2011 about uses for wool, in this case as a fire-resistant material for the bedroom. Guiding us through this process is our old friend, Sir Ken Knight. As you'll see elsewhere on this site, Sir Ken is suspiciously fond of flame retardants - not so much as having them in his own home I suspect but probably because there's an awful lot of money to be made from them.
Sir Ken actually gives out mixed messages and makes illogical statements in this video. What he should be saying is, "Hey everyone - get rid of all your synthetic bedding, carpets, mattresses, pillows and curtains and use as much wool as possible, since the former is much more toxic when it burns because it's stuffed full of flame retardants." Instead, he first of all praises wool in that it doesn't burn much and is not toxic. But when asked if we should therefore ditch plastic-based materials - after the second fire testing of them nearly kills Sir Ken, the BBC and Token Consumer Couple with acrid black smoke - he says no, you just need to choose safe products. Er, isn't that what the question is asking, Sir Ken?
Does this make sense? Of course not. But you have to remember the likes of Sir Ken take the approach of bullying committees and officials and the press into doing what they say because they say it, not because there's any logic to it.
I'm sure we're all seeing myriad examples of this happening right now, as we remain locked into homes that are actually worse for our health than any virus.
For example, BEIS/OPSS has recently put out two documents, one all but hidden from sight, concerning the Furniture Regulations. In both cases all they're in effect saying is "We are reviewing the regulations"; that's it - something they've been doing now for 16 years and counting. What they're not saying but which is the truth is, "We are deliberately misleading everyone because we have no intention of every changing these regulations since that would expose us as having been poisoning the public and the environment for many years and we aren't prepared to accept responsibility for that, even thought that means refusing to put things right."
MHCLG has similarly been appointing scientists and awarding contracts without going through the proper tendering process, towards researching the truth of the toxicity of the Grenfell Tower fire. In short, the people they're appointing have close links to the chemical, foam, plastics industries - the very source of the toxicity and who stand to lose massive profits if theit products are found guilty.
All of which causes much unnecessary work for anyone who just wants the public and the environment to be protected and not just serve as profit-points for big business.
I've today added a piece to the Consumer Guide to Buying Furniture section of this website which illustrates the complications when corruption is involved. It's an extract from a BBC programme broadcast in 2011 about uses for wool, in this case as a fire-resistant material for the bedroom. Guiding us through this process is our old friend, Sir Ken Knight. As you'll see elsewhere on this site, Sir Ken is suspiciously fond of flame retardants - not so much as having them in his own home I suspect but probably because there's an awful lot of money to be made from them.
Sir Ken actually gives out mixed messages and makes illogical statements in this video. What he should be saying is, "Hey everyone - get rid of all your synthetic bedding, carpets, mattresses, pillows and curtains and use as much wool as possible, since the former is much more toxic when it burns because it's stuffed full of flame retardants." Instead, he first of all praises wool in that it doesn't burn much and is not toxic. But when asked if we should therefore ditch plastic-based materials - after the second fire testing of them nearly kills Sir Ken, the BBC and Token Consumer Couple with acrid black smoke - he says no, you just need to choose safe products. Er, isn't that what the question is asking, Sir Ken?
Does this make sense? Of course not. But you have to remember the likes of Sir Ken take the approach of bullying committees and officials and the press into doing what they say because they say it, not because there's any logic to it.
I'm sure we're all seeing myriad examples of this happening right now, as we remain locked into homes that are actually worse for our health than any virus.
RSS Feed