On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:28:10 -0600, "Bella" wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Mar 2004 11:59:22 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article m,
Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" writes:
| On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:43:26 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:
|
| Cockroaches aren't destructive or injurious to health.
| Try these:
|
http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6...ockroaches.PDF
|
| http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/Busines...ockroaches.pdf
|
| and if you don't think much of the UK links, try the WHO:
|
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sa...ntrol/ch31.htm

The fact that they are a serious health risk in the tropics is
not necessarily evidence that they are in the UK.

The H&SE think they are. Restaurants with resident cockroaches are
closed down.

Mosquitoes are
there and not here.

and unless you live near a major international airport.

Saskatchewan is in the tropics?

no

urg the educational group :-)

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:28:10 -0600, "Bella" wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Mar 2004 11:59:22 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article m,
Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" writes:
| On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:43:26 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:
|
| Cockroaches aren't destructive or injurious to health.
| Try these:
|
http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6...ockroaches.PDF
|
| http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/Busines...ockroaches.pdf
|
| and if you don't think much of the UK links, try the WHO:
|
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sa...ntrol/ch31.htm

The fact that they are a serious health risk in the tropics is
not necessarily evidence that they are in the UK.

The H&SE think they are. Restaurants with resident cockroaches are
closed down.

Mosquitoes are
there and not here.

and unless you live near a major international airport.

Saskatchewan is in the tropics?

no

urg the educational group :-)

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:28:10 -0600, "Bella" wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Mar 2004 11:59:22 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article m,
Tim Challenger "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" writes:
| On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:43:26 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:
|
| Cockroaches aren't destructive or injurious to health.
| Try these:
|
http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6...ockroaches.PDF
|
| http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/Busines...ockroaches.pdf
|
| and if you don't think much of the UK links, try the WHO:
|
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sa...ntrol/ch31.htm

The fact that they are a serious health risk in the tropics is
not necessarily evidence that they are in the UK.

The H&SE think they are. Restaurants with resident cockroaches are
closed down.

Mosquitoes are
there and not here.

and unless you live near a major international airport.

Saskatchewan is in the tropics?

no

urg the educational group :-)

In article ,
martin wrote:
On 26 Mar 2004 17:26:55 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
martin wrote:

Several people a year catch malaria in the vicinity of European
International airports. Forget statistics and look at reality.

Aw, gee. A risk of about 0.0001% per annum, or a lifetime risk
of less than 0.001%, assuming that you live close to a major
international airport.

and your source is?

Well, you, for one. Do the arithmetic, assuming that you are up to
it. Please ask for help, if not.

You youngsters are just wimps.

which youngsters?

You seem a prime example.

Where and when I was born, there
was something like a 30% per annum chance of catching malaria.

In UK? Rubbish, unless you are several hundred years old.

No, my dear boy, no.

In the Netherlands where malaria was still endemic until the 1950s
Around 50 people died of malaria a year, far more died of polio.

Think on that. 50 deaths a year in a country of quite a few millions.
Not what a rational person would call a serious health risk.

Worry about something real, like tripping over your own feet,
falling down stairs and breaking your neck.

Like Mary said there is more to worry about traveling by car.

You're learning. Malaria is not a serious health risk in northern
Europe, and hasn't been for a very long time, and that includes
people living close to airports. Trevelling on the roads is, and
so is using stairs - look at the figures!

Oh, and by the way, most forms of malaria are not forever; the
recurrent form is relatively uncommon.

Both forms are relatively uncommon in UK.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
martin wrote:
On 26 Mar 2004 17:26:55 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
martin wrote:

Several people a year catch malaria in the vicinity of European
International airports. Forget statistics and look at reality.

Aw, gee. A risk of about 0.0001% per annum, or a lifetime risk
of less than 0.001%, assuming that you live close to a major
international airport.

and your source is?

Well, you, for one. Do the arithmetic, assuming that you are up to
it. Please ask for help, if not.

You youngsters are just wimps.

which youngsters?

You seem a prime example.

Where and when I was born, there
was something like a 30% per annum chance of catching malaria.

In UK? Rubbish, unless you are several hundred years old.

No, my dear boy, no.

In the Netherlands where malaria was still endemic until the 1950s
Around 50 people died of malaria a year, far more died of polio.

Think on that. 50 deaths a year in a country of quite a few millions.
Not what a rational person would call a serious health risk.

Worry about something real, like tripping over your own feet,
falling down stairs and breaking your neck.

Like Mary said there is more to worry about traveling by car.

You're learning. Malaria is not a serious health risk in northern
Europe, and hasn't been for a very long time, and that includes
people living close to airports. Trevelling on the roads is, and
so is using stairs - look at the figures!

Oh, and by the way, most forms of malaria are not forever; the
recurrent form is relatively uncommon.

Both forms are relatively uncommon in UK.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
martin wrote:
On 26 Mar 2004 17:26:55 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
martin wrote:

Several people a year catch malaria in the vicinity of European
International airports. Forget statistics and look at reality.

Aw, gee. A risk of about 0.0001% per annum, or a lifetime risk
of less than 0.001%, assuming that you live close to a major
international airport.

and your source is?

Well, you, for one. Do the arithmetic, assuming that you are up to
it. Please ask for help, if not.

You youngsters are just wimps.

which youngsters?

You seem a prime example.

Where and when I was born, there
was something like a 30% per annum chance of catching malaria.

In UK? Rubbish, unless you are several hundred years old.

No, my dear boy, no.

In the Netherlands where malaria was still endemic until the 1950s
Around 50 people died of malaria a year, far more died of polio.

Think on that. 50 deaths a year in a country of quite a few millions.
Not what a rational person would call a serious health risk.

Worry about something real, like tripping over your own feet,
falling down stairs and breaking your neck.

Like Mary said there is more to worry about traveling by car.

You're learning. Malaria is not a serious health risk in northern
Europe, and hasn't been for a very long time, and that includes
people living close to airports. Trevelling on the roads is, and
so is using stairs - look at the figures!

Oh, and by the way, most forms of malaria are not forever; the
recurrent form is relatively uncommon.

Both forms are relatively uncommon in UK.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 27 Mar 2004 16:27:32 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


Oh, and by the way, most forms of malaria are not forever; the
recurrent form is relatively uncommon.

Both forms are relatively uncommon in UK.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.

I said it was serious for the person who caught it.

On 27 Mar 2004 16:27:32 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


Oh, and by the way, most forms of malaria are not forever; the
recurrent form is relatively uncommon.

Both forms are relatively uncommon in UK.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.

I said it was serious for the person who caught it.

On 27 Mar 2004 16:27:32 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


Oh, and by the way, most forms of malaria are not forever; the
recurrent form is relatively uncommon.

Both forms are relatively uncommon in UK.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.

I said it was serious for the person who caught it.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.



NO, NO, NO, it's cats which are a health risk.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.



NO, NO, NO, it's cats which are a health risk.

Then why did you say that it was a serious health risk? The mind
boggles.



NO, NO, NO, it's cats which are a health risk.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.134.124.199
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 1080409127 6280 217.134.124.199 (27 Mar 2004 17:38:47 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Mar 2004 17:38:47 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!border1.nntp.as h.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!diablo.theplanet.net! news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:193581

Did you know?
Quinine was called the Jesuit bark by the protestants in Cromwell's day and
thus was not allowed in England.
With the result that when Oliver Cromwell caught malaria there was no
effective treatment and he died of it.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.134.124.199
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 1080409127 6280 217.134.124.199 (27 Mar 2004 17:38:47 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Mar 2004 17:38:47 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!border1.nntp.as h.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!diablo.theplanet.net! news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:193581

Did you know?
Quinine was called the Jesuit bark by the protestants in Cromwell's day and
thus was not allowed in England.
With the result that when Oliver Cromwell caught malaria there was no
effective treatment and he died of it.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.134.124.199
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 1080409127 6280 217.134.124.199 (27 Mar 2004 17:38:47 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Mar 2004 17:38:47 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!border1.nntp.as h.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!diablo.theplanet.net! news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:193581

Did you know?
Quinine was called the Jesuit bark by the protestants in Cromwell's day and
thus was not allowed in England.
With the result that when Oliver Cromwell caught malaria there was no
effective treatment and he died of it.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk