In article ,
"tim..." wrote:

thermometers are sealed units

(I have no idea about barometers, but assume likewise)

There may be sealed versions but the point about a mercury barometer is
that it's influenced by atmospheric pressure and the most basic version
is an open dish with a long tube immersed in it. I'd guess old versions
are most likely to have mercury open to the atmosphere.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2016-07-18 11:32:04 +0000, said:

Ah! The old British Imperial arrogance! The EU has plenty of trading
opportunities without the UK and can afford to be hard bon us as we
can afford to be hard on them, nearly 10 times the size.

I voted Remain, but even given that, if they impose *punitive*
tariffs they are selfish idiots barely worse than a child throwing
toys out of their pram.

They won't impose tariffs. They will just refuse to accept British
demands

so we wont accept theirs then

So we lose.

if they are as diplomatic as Boris Johnson and David Davis.

Do you really think that politicians take their rhetoric into private
meetings?

It isn't just Boris and Dave who are outspoken on the campaign trail

From the reported reactions to Boris, it would seem so.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:25:58 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:

It's every much the same sort of thing: banning a commodity because
it's harmful/unethical or whatever.

There is a mile of difference between unethical and harmful, especially
when in normal use the item isn't harmful at all, it's only harmful if
it's abused.

Ivory hunting is harmful to elephants.

I was referring to the mercury instrument (I thought that was bleeding
obvious)

The problem with mercury is that even if not "abused" (whatever that
means) it has a tendency to get split, and when it does the tiny droplets
run everywhere and are very difficult to clean up.

thermometers are sealed units

(I have no idea about barometers, but assume likewise)

Barometers measure atmospheric pressure, so they have to be open to the
atmosphere to do this.

--
Jeremy Double

"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"tim..." wrote:

thermometers are sealed units

(I have no idea about barometers, but assume likewise)

There may be sealed versions but the point about a mercury barometer is
that it's influenced by atmospheric pressure and the most basic version

oh yes

how silly of me :-(

tim

In message , at 13:55:26 on
Tue, 19 Jul 2016, remarked:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:43:42 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:21:02 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
And at least we had a significant say, and sometimes a veto, over other
rules that did affect us. They'll probably still affect us when we're
outside the EU, but now we have no say, and certainly no veto.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned
the sale of these instruments, then?

Do you approve of scrapping the ban on trading in ivory too?

That's completely different though, isn't

(It's a ridiculous comparison and you ought to fell ashamed making it)

It's every much the same sort of thing: banning a commodity because it's
harmful/unethical or whatever.


Elephants don't get a choice if poachers decide to kill them,

Nor do people in the vicinity of spilt mercury get a choice.

those who wish to handle scientific instruments with Mercury in them
can make the choice and decide for themselves after assessing the
risk.

Only if they are competent to assess the risk. And even then, their risk
assessment might be based on decades out of date standards.

Your comparison was silly.

I was drawing out the "grandfathering" aspect, correctly as it tuns out.

--
Roland Perry

On 18/07/2016 20:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:30:37 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
It's every much the same sort of thing: banning a commodity because
it's harmful/unethical or whatever.

There is a mile of difference between unethical and harmful,
especially when in normal use the item isn't harmful at all, it's only
harmful if it's abused.

Ivory hunting is harmful to elephants.

Not if you get it from a walrus.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...


The problem with mercury is that even if not "abused" (whatever that
means) it has a tendency to get split, and when it does the tiny droplets
run everywhere and are very difficult to clean up.

thermometers are sealed units

Until they get broken, like the one in my dad's greenhouse which I used to
push the droplets around the wooden shelf with a long nail.


(I have no idea about barometers, but assume likewise)



The mercury column needs to be open to air pressure, but I guess there
could be a sliding piston arrangement of some kind to achieve it. My dad
has a large mercury-column barometer, which IIRC claims to be
spillage-proof even if turned upside down accidentally during transport, so
there must be a seal of some kind.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message , at
19:13:42 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

Ivory hunting is harmful to elephants.

Not if you get it from a walrus.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
--
Roland Perry

"JohnD" wrote in message ...

Forgetting about EFTA altogether and regressing to plain WTO arrangements
really isn't a viable option either, for anyone with enough patience and
interest see eg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...sury-committee

========================

I've refrained from commenting further in this thread because I think I've
made my views abundantly clear already.

But for anyone genuinely interested in the prospects, especially trade
agreements etc, I would urge you to see the two Parliamentary committee
videocasts I've linked to above. I think they'll only be on iPlayer for
another week or two, so not too much time left.

As far as I can judge, the panellists giving evidence in both sessions for
chosen solely for their professional in-depth expertise and experience in
relevant aspects of international law, trade negotiations and international
agreements and seem as objective as one could ever hope for. There is no
obvious sign that they're batting either for the Leave or Remain sides.
Michael Dougan in particular (first session) seems to have a really detailed
understanding of the legal aspects of the Realpolitik of post-Brexit
solutions rather than the ideology.

NB These are not gameshows or theatrical debates in the style of the
Referendum debates, but 2-hour long in-depth sessions (but which you can
obviously dip in and out of at will). But for anyone willing to spend the
time watching, I think they'll prove quite revealing.

In article , (JohnD)
wrote:

"JohnD" wrote in message ...

Forgetting about EFTA altogether and regressing to plain WTO arrangements
really isn't a viable option either, for anyone with enough patience and
interest see eg:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...-treasury-comm
ittee


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...-treasury-comm
ittee

========================

I've refrained from commenting further in this thread because I think
I've made my views abundantly clear already.

But for anyone genuinely interested in the prospects, especially
trade agreements etc, I would urge you to see the two Parliamentary
committee videocasts I've linked to above. I think they'll only be on
iPlayer for another week or two, so not too much time left.

As far as I can judge, the panellists giving evidence in both
sessions for chosen solely for their professional in-depth expertise
and experience in relevant aspects of international law, trade
negotiations and international agreements and seem as objective as
one could ever hope for. There is no obvious sign that they're
batting either for the Leave or Remain sides. Michael Dougan in
particular (first session) seems to have a really detailed
understanding of the legal aspects of the Realpolitik of post-Brexit
solutions rather than the ideology.

NB These are not gameshows or theatrical debates in the style of the
Referendum debates, but 2-hour long in-depth sessions (but which you
can obviously dip in and out of at will). But for anyone willing to
spend the time watching, I think they'll prove quite revealing.

Did they lead to written Select Committee reports? They would give a more
permanent record.

--
Colin Rosenstiel