End of the line for cups and saucers on trains - Telegraph

In message <Qt-dnX8ty7LTCWTVnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@pipex.net>, at 02:46:22 on
Sat, 18 Oct 2008, naked_draughtsman <usenet3@petereverett.co.uk>
remarked:
>What about one of those paper things between the cup and saucer?

I think MML used to do that. What happens is that after a couple of
miles you get a soggy coffee-soaked paper thing stuck to the saucer.
--
Roland Perry

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote
>
> Given the incredible amount of effort that went in to specifying the
> ride quality of the Mk 4 coaches, it seems ironic that they ride as
> badly as they do.
>
I'm told that they ride extremely well at their design maximum speed of 140
mph. But they'd need cab signalling to be allowed to run at that speed.

Peter

There is such a thing as a plastic spoon, cuts down on washing up as
well.

Tony Polson <docnews2011@> wrote:
> Perhaps the NXEC mugs will have an integral saucer and a reservoir to
> take the slops - without re-issuing them when the diner takes a gulp
> from the mug, of course ...

Just halve the amount of beverage provided. Problem solved :)

Theo

Tony Polson wrote:
> Stimpy <stimpy1997ukm> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:32:30 +0100, Tony Polson wrote
>>> darkprince66 <darkprince17031966.uk> wrote:
>>>> There are lots of nut allergy sufferer's who are
>>>> allergic merely to the touch of nuts, or the oily residue that they
>>>> leave on anything they come into contact with.
>>>
>>> Lots? How many is "lots"?
>> According to Wikipedia, 1% of the adult population suffer from a peanut
>> allergy.
>>
>>> What percentage of the population suffers from the grossly enhanced
>>> version of nut allergy that you have described?
>> Presumably a very small percentage of that 1% suffer from the acute version
>> -if it's 1% then it's .01% of the overall population. If we go with a 60m
>> population for the UK then maybe 6,000 people are badly affected?
>>
>>> Is there a name for this condition?
>> Seems only to be known as 'Peanut Allergy' (seriously!)
>
>
> Thanks.
>
The severe allergic reaction (to any allergen, not just peanuts) is
anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock. Other common associations are with
bee/wasp stings and penicillin (but not at the same time).

Tony Polson wrote:

> In which case, better to educate those at risk about reducing and if
> necessary eliminating their exposure to the allergen, rather than the
> issue unnecessarily affecting tens of millions of people.

How badly affected are you by a notice warning of nuts in a coffee
and walnut cake? Perhaps all such warnings need another warning saying,
"If you've been affected by anything you've read in this warning,
call ....".

Cheers

mark-r

In message
<95358997-bca9-404c-88e3-20d3c24702d5@m44g2000hsc..com>, at
04:30:46 on Mon, 20 Oct 2008, rob499@m remarked:
>The passengers, papers and laptops now get sprayed with
>milk instead of slopped coffee.

*Applause* I have yet to see anyone open these dratted "milk tubes" for
the first time and *not* spray themselves. Whoever designed these
infernal things should be put in stocks at St Pancras and have people
throw milk-soaked sponges at them!!
--
Roland Perry

On Oct 21, 7:52 am, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> Stimpy wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:11:37 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote
> >> Tony Polson wrote:
> >>> Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
>
> >>>> Tony Polson wrote:
> >>>>> Stimpy <stimpy199...m> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:32:30 +0100, Tony Polson wrote
> >>>>>>> darkprince66 <darkprince17031....uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> There are lots of nut allergy sufferer's who are
> >>>>>>>> allergic merely to the touch of nuts, or the oily residue that they
> >>>>>>>> leave on anything they come into contact with.
> >>>>>>> Lots?  How many is "lots"?  
> >>>>>> According to Wikipedia, 1% of the adult population suffer from a peanut
> >>>>>> allergy.
>
> >>>>>>> What percentage of the population suffers from the grossly enhanced
> >>>>>>> version of nut allergy that you have described?  
> >>>>>> Presumably a very small percentage of that 1% suffer from the acute
> >>>>>> version
> >>>>>> -if it's 1% then it's .01% of the overall population.  If we go with a
> >>>>>> 60m
> >>>>>> population for the UK then maybe 6,000 people are badly affected?  
>
> >>>>>>> Is there a name for this condition?
> >>>>>> Seems only to be known as 'Peanut Allergy' (seriously!)
> >>>>> Thanks.
>
> >>>> The severe allergic reaction (to any allergen, not just peanuts) is
> >>>> anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock. Other common associations are with
> >>>> bee/wasp stings and penicillin (but not at the same time).
>
> >>> Thanks Charles.  I would very much like to know how many (or rather,
> >>> how few) people are affected in this way.  Stimpy's off-the-cuff
> >>> analysis suggests a figure in the low thousands, but I suspect it may
> >>> be significantly lower than that.  Or it may be higher, of course.  
>
> >>> Either way, I would like to know, because the paranoia surrounding nut
> >>> allergies seems as though it may be out of proportion to the probably
> >>> very tiny number of people who might suffer from the acute version.
>
> >>> In which case, better to educate those at risk about reducing and if
> >>> necessary eliminating their exposure to the allergen, rather than the
> >>> issue unnecessarily affecting tens of millions of people.
> >> Or in other words, tell the sufferers to just FOAD? Or more accurately
> >> FOA-not-D, I suppose.
>
> > How do the numbers with severe peanut allergy compare to the numbers with
> > (say) severe lard allergy, or severe flour allergy?
>
> > Is there any reason why our hypothetical slice of cake should have a peanut
> > warning but not a lard warning or a flour warning?
>
> I've seen various information panels along those lines. Objecting seems
> a little like complaining that train doors in contrasting colours spoil
> photographs - and few people fall down the gaps between carriages anyway.
>
> A local takeaway has signs saying the food is halal - but it is hard to
> imagine anyone going there without having had a few beers first...

As you imply, it is, or certainly should be, standard practice to tell
people precisely what is in food they are being offered so that they
can decide whether they want to eat it.

I don't need to be told what's suitable for me as some labelled
minority (eg "vegetarian", "coeliac" etc); I just want to know what's
in the food.

However, the nut thing is slightly different in that traces of them
can apparently lead to severe reactions. I don't think diabetics
react to traces of sugar. I don't see why a million people should
object to a harmless warning that might save the life of one.

On Oct 21, 9:29 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:37:28 +0100, Stimpy <stimpy199...m>
> wrote:
>
> >Is there any reason why our hypothetical slice of cake should have a peanut
> >warning but not a lard warning or a flour warning?
>
> If in a packet, it probably will have, in that if it contains lard it
> won't say it's vegetarian, and if it contains flour it will usually
> say it contains wheat/gluten (one I have to look out for myself, as it
> happens).  Other than that it will be on the ingredients panel, but
> the supermarkets in particular are getting very good at labelling
> common allergens.  And good on them for it, as well.
>
> Slight side question: why is it that makers of alcoholic beverages are
> exempted from the requirement to display an ingredients panel on the
> bottle/can?

And chocolate. Is it a trade secret or something?

On Oct 21, 10:46 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:30:28 -0700 (PDT), MIG
>
> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> >And chocolate.  Is it a trade secret or something?
>
> I don't recall ever having seen a bar of chocolate without an
> ingredients panel.

I don't remember ever seeing one with one (for the chocolate part),
unless that's changed since I last bought one. Used to be just a
mysterious "Chocolate contains x% cocoa solids" or something like that.