Tapster

@lvr181

Fair comment. 

I was on the way out the door when I posted, and am running late now as a result. 

I thought I might be picked up on sources and citations. 

Not only peer review but the gold standard of experiments: randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled. 

I'll post sources in full this evening or early tomorrow. Sorry it can't be sooner. 

@peterb17

I'm a scientist of a sort: Dental degree and prize in physiology. 

From an evolutionary perspective humans are omnivores, designed to make the best use of the foods presented to them. There were no refined carbs available until very recently in evolutionary terms. Human digestion was designed to get the most out of carbs. We couldn't digest cellulose, but it was useful as fibre. The starches/complex carbs we ate were digested and turned into simple sugars, the blood level of which was controlled by insulin. 

When refined carbs and simple sugars became part of our daily diet, our bodies processed them in the same way as they did the complex carbs of old and excess metabolic energy was created which was turned into fat, for a hard winter which never came. 

The calorie-counting, 'energy in : energy out' concept needs to change. 

I held to this for years until about three years ago when I was presented with evidence that calories from sugar and refined carbohydrates cause more fat deposition than calories from fat. 

This is counter-intuitive to the low fat generation (and I spent years as a keen rock climber following such a diet)  but it is provable that we have been misled by vested interests, intellectual arrogance and a sad lack of academic rigor. 

As I said above, I'll post links and I'd like to hear your thoughts. 

Until later. 

@DividendGuy

I'd like to add that this isn't a fad diet. This is the fat-loss diet advice suggested by a lot of hard science.

For years the press has quoted one study claiming this and another claiming that, so that people are distrusting of another study.

The science behind this is solid and comes from many studies carried out world-wide under the most rigorous ethical standards.

The so-called Keto Diet is not a normal, day-to-day eating plan for maintaining body weight. It is a safe way of manipulating your body's metabolism so that it mainly uses fat for energy, thus reducing body fat.

The day-to-day eating concept associated with this diet is LCHF, or low carbohydrate, high fat. The idea is that you eat a lot less processed carbohydrate like sugar, pasta, white bread, rice and replace those calories with foods containing hunger-satisfying fats in the form of meats, dairy, oily fish and even fruit and vegetables.

You don't have to start off with a strict keto diet. As has been said in a previous post, just changing to the principles of LCHF will cause you to lose weight, so long as you're not going to over-eat and drink gallons of beer!

You can try it and if you like it, then get more serious with the keto diet. Either way, you will be at less cardiac and diabetic risk on LCHF and you'll probably start to feel better as well.

The opinions expressed on this thread are the most thoughtful ones I've seen on Thai Visa for a long time. For once, nobody has waded in with a knee-jerk reaction. I'm impressed and I wish more of Thai Visa were like this.

I have a comment about ethics.

Let me preface this by saying that my wife is in hospital now,  successfully recovering from very severe pneumonia. She was on a ventilator for two weeks and for almost a week was at extreme risk of dying. Mentally, I had to consider losing her, so I can imagine the feelings these parents must have.

Among his medical issues, poor little Charlie could not see, could not hear, could not swallow and had multiple organ failure.

The experimental treatment of administering nucleosides to him was clearly going to be of no benefit. It was exactly like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Nucleosides were needed when this poor young lad was developing in the womb, so that his body would be formed correctly. You can't just add nucleosides after everything is formed and expect them to rearrange everything. It really doesn't work like that.

When a child is born with such debilitating problems and with such a poor outlook for any decent quality of life, decisions must be made without the Pope and Trump getting involved. The Vice President, Mike Pence even used this case politically, saying that it helped to prove the case against government health schemes. What?!!

Here's an extract from a serious article by a ethicist, describing the sort of characteristics needed to be a part of difficult decisions like Charlie's:

"......described the qualities of people who should be engaged in (dispassionate decision making).

They should be knowledgeable about the relevant facts. 

Importantly, they should be “reasonable”:

(i) being willing to use inductive logic,

(ii) being disposed to find reasons for and against a solution,

(iii) having an open mind,

(iv) making a conscientious effort to overcome his intellectual, emotional and moral prejudices.  Lastly, they are to have “sympathetic knowledge … of those human interests which, by conflicting in particular cases, give rise to the need to make a moral decision.”^20....."

Now, that's all a bit highfaluting but I think it seems fair to suggest that (despite their legitimate desire to do anything to save their child) parents in a case like this cannot be allowed to direct the treatment of their child, especially to his detriment. If they cannot be part of a reasoned decision-making process, the progress of the treatment should not be halted for months while the Pope and Trump and many others get involved.

In this case, that is what the court eventually ruled. It may seem uncaring to some, but maybe we're starting to go a bit far in indulging people's most extreme feelings, when they are causing unnecessary suffering to someone. There should be a fair way of deciding such difficult issues in a reasonable time scale without the rest of the world getting involved.

The ethical discussion I have cited is here: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/07/hard-lessons-learning-from-the-charlie-gard-case/

83-year-old lady that we know in Phuket.

She drives very well.

Cannot......resist........................must post photo of my loud chopper!

Next to one of my favourite restaurants in Rawai..............

...............take that, haters!

I don't think Thailand recognises noise pollution as a "thing". Certainly, Thai people seem immune to it, mostly. 

You're never going to stop loud exhausts. They are exciting and give bikes that 'go faster' feel, especially if you can't afford a bike that goes faster! 

This is a regular thread. There was one like it a few months ago. It really does bring all the grumpy old men out! 

As I might have said in the last such thread, one is usually exposed to a loud exhaust sound for only a few seconds, as the offending vehicle goes by. 

I think it says a lot about what's going on in your heads if a few seconds of noise result in hours of complaining! 

32 minutes ago, billd766 said:

23 hours ago, sandemara said:

Marry a Thai citizen or make any serious investment. The country is a swamp full of crocodiles perfectly camouflaged for the existing environment. You're just another herd animal with unjustifiable pretensions. . Never kid yourself that you're a predator,  or even in control.

 

Total and absolute rubbish.

@billd766

Obviously, Bill, you're entitled to your opinion, however sandemara's post isn't far off some people's experience of Thailand.

I can identify with the sentiment.

If you're fortunate enough to to speak Thai and to be as integrated into society as is possible for a farang, you might be lucky and not have had a whiff of these aspects of the Western experience here, but I think many people have. 

Thanks to everyone, this is a very useful thread, full of some of the deeper truths about Thailand. 

My 'never' is....... 

Never wait until the end of a tradesman's job to point out what you have found wrong with it. Always monitor the progress and micromanage as necessary. 

Before I realised this rule, a painter drew a knife on me when I asked him to redo some areas after he thought he'd finished. 

@Mises

I agree with you.

I have reviewed the footage on a large screen and I was wrong in my assertion that the poor guy swung upside down from the leg loops. It did look like that to me on the tiny screen I was using yesterday.

So, if he fell upright, he must have had his shoulder fasteners fail somehow. Maybe one was manually opened and the other failed with the full weight of the client? Who knows?

Confirmation of this would be if he fell with the harness on. If the chest fastener had failed and he'd fallen out of the harness, the latter would still be attached to the yolk of the parachute set-up.

On the video, as he's having the shoulder fastenings attached to the D-rings of the parachute rigging, the victim grasps the right and left webbing slings and holds them down on his chest. He stays like that and nobody notices (or checks!) that when the parachute launches both his hands will be janked up over his head,  because he's holding the straps the wrong way round. Have a look at the photo I've attached of people in the correct position.

In fact, looking at the video again, you can see that the victim keeps a death grip on the straps and the operator goes to unclip the right (?) fastener.

As the victim hangs with full body weight on one clip, it fails. 

In this situation, anyone who would consider releasing one of the shoulder fastenings is either a criminally negligent operator or a very silly, and unlucky client! Any problem to do with the rigging should have been managed, if not completely corrected, without touching the shoulder fastenings at all. The operator should have simply left him with his arms in a silly, but not dangerous position, but it seems he chose not to. 

What do you think?

@happyas

I sensed a dismissive air about your last post to me.

I was right.

I viewed the video on a very small screen and couldn't see that his legs were pointing downwards.

Is that OK?     Would you like to beat me up some more? 

Everything else in my post was correct. I hope we find out the details of what happened.

@happyas

Actually, the poster with the helpful screenshots is correct. 

The victim does fall feet first. 

I have read some informed opinions in this thread and many ill-informed ones. 

My experience comes from 35 years of rock climbing. Seat and chest harnesses are used in climbing and I am very familiar with their design and operation. 

Here's my opinion on the accident:

Though old, the webbing of the harness and its stitching would not have been failure points. Webbing that looks as worn as in the video is still extremely strong, capable of holding many times body weight. For stitching to fail requires either an enormous sudden load on the harness or the stitching to be already so weak that the weak part of the harness would appear very obviously to be falling apart. 

The webbing tails hanging loose at the victim's thighs are not a sign of straps which have not been done up; quite the opposite. Those are the loose ends of the leg loops and they are long because the leg loops have been done up tight, leaving the tails slack. 

If you know what to look for it is clear that the victim's harness released at chest hight. You can then see him invert and he is hanging by the leg loops, eventually falling out of them upside down to his death. 

I cannot say whether he unfastened this himself or it somehow became unfastened. In the video, it is clearly fastened and then a life jacket is put on over the chest which would make the fastener difficult to get to. 

My only issue with this chest fastener is that it appears not to be a locking device. In such a crucial position, I would always use a fastener that the passenger could not open. 

The victim is definitely not wearing the harness as he falls. 

There are only three points which the victim had access to which could cause an accident. Two fasteners at his shoulders attached his harness to the D rings on the yolk (diagram in post above) and one fastener at chest level attached the right and left halves of the harness. It would be virtually impossible to unclip the shoulder fasteners as his full body weight was on them. 

Any of these three fasteners needs not only to be unhooked to release it, but a safety 'gate' on the fastener has to be held open while the fastener is unhooked. You can see in the video that the chest fastener is one like this. 

Isn't that photo one of the crowds on the beach at James Bond Island?

A - there are many people who have obviously arrived on that beach by speedboat.

B - they're not doing any beachy activities. They're all pretty much fully dressed and walking around with all their stuff.

I reckon it's James Bond Island.

???

I have a recommendation for anyone who likes Chinese dim sum (not Thai) and handmade noodles:

On Chao Far West, directly opposite the Honda offices, at the junction with traffic lights and the 4010 Road to Kathu.

It's called the "MO Din"     https://goo.gl/maps/xgRBPDqM2AC2

There is a small menu but some very good dishes. The noodles are actually made in front of you, They do soup dumplings (Xiao Long Bao), steamed pork buns, fried dumplings and four noodle dishes, two of them with mouth-numbing Szechuan pepper.

I recommend everything except the weird, sponge cake type stuff which just doesn't look like it's worth the calories. It might be great, I don't know.

And.....it's very cheap!  I had a great lunch for 220 THB.

Enjoy!   

Maybe research first. 

Reviews of that Chinese restaurant are not encouraging. 

It seems clear that the Fitzgerald was completely unaware of the approaching container ship. 

I'm looking forward to hearing how so many crew members who should have been on lookout or watching radar were doing anything but. 

The captain of the Fitzgerald should have been woken when the container ship was 4km away from his ship, yet the ships continued to close on each other. 

The crew of the container ship didn't seem to know what had happened and, after the collision, the ship returned to the same course and speed, on autopilot. Maybe the crew were all asleep.

Apparently, the US Navy will announce their findings, once investigations are completed. 

@xylophone 

You seem to be taking this personally. 

I know this is illegal and I have explained my reasons. 

I don't think anyone is ignoring what you have helpfully posted. 

However, others choose to act differently, driven by their own wants and needs. 

Live and let live. We're all grown ups and know the risks. 

@Mysterion 

If a single company-structured property purchase was voided and everyone involved was punished, that would be looked at very carefully by all farang house owners.

However, if the government decided on a wholesale attack on everyone with company-structured property, that would definitely have a detrimental affect on the market, presumably as 100s of expats raced to sell their homes at the best price, before being forced into a loss-making quick sale.

It would be a disaster. I'm betting that it won't happen. You could lose most of your money, but I think it's unlikely.

I pay 30,000 THB annually for accounts. The company set-up was approximately 75,000.

Yes, it is completely illegal to set up a company with the sole purpose of owning a house and the land it stands on. I know that.

I need to live in a house, ownership of which is secure. I don't want anyone selling my rented house from under me. I want to change and improve the house any way I want and have it worth something at the end when I sell it.
It is an essential part of my nature to own a house if I'm living in a country long term. It's not a big house, but it's mine. 

For this I am "happy" to take the risks mentioned in full, in the above posts.

I think it's highly unlikely that the Thai government would ever decide to void all ownership papers based on this "loophole".

The loss of probably several billion Baht, repatriated to foreign accounts to say nothing about the loss of goodwill and of many people leaving Thailand, taking their continued foreign investment with them, would not be insignificant.

However, this is Thailand! Anything is possible, just quite unlikely in this case, I think.

And, the house will take some time to sell, at some point in the far future. There's a property glut in Phuket so it might take a year or even two, to sell. That said, my Canadian neighbour sold her house within two months.

Oh, yes and our monthly "rent", taking the purchase price over 30 years, is 22,000 THB, which is much cheaper than renting this house.

And, we had capital when we came here, but not a large amount of monthly income. Interest rates being so low we were better spending capital on the house than investing it for a pittance that wouldn't have paid the rent on the sort of house we wanted.

That's my reasoning/assumptions/strategy.

It's a big caveat emptor !

OK, I understand.

Well, if the navy wants to be so stealthy, they should make more effort to observe what's going on around them.

Because..........humans!

We have self-driving cars. Why can there not be a simple system, tied to the autopilot, to ensure that there is no collision, even if everyone on both ships is having a party, or has unaccountably died suddenly.

So, here's what happened. 

Unfortunately my wife is in hospital and I have been so preoccupied that I didn't go to immigration within the seven days after the 90-day date. 

No problem, I thought. I'll just get a letter from the hospital explaining our situation and the compassionate immigration officer will let me off our 2,000 THB fine (each), for being late. 

No so. 

If the computer says your late you get fined, that's it, in all cases. 

No letter, argument or pleading will make any difference. 

I learned two things:

 - Always go within the 14 days before / 7 days after window. 

 - The late fine is 2,000 THB whether you are one day late or one year late...... These were the exact words of the immigration officer. 

@GOLDBUGGY

I apologised for my error in post #8, yet you wade in, days after the event, to tell me so again. 

Please get a life. 

I have a Husqvarna chainsaw. 

They are easily as good as Stihl. I'm surprised that nobody seems to have heard of them. 

@trd

Yes, very funny. 

However, tap water in the UK or in other first World countries, and bottled water anywhere is not mineral-free. 

The mineral content is what gives water its taste. Some bottled waters are highly prized for their particular mineral mix. 

I'm happy with the minerals from the septic tank outflow. It's the bacteria that I don't want, and the filters remove those. 

That's the science. You can't argue with facts.