OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 20 Jul 2019, 14:27


Don't want to see any advertising? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 386 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 26  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:07 
Offline
Stir Crazy

Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 16:19
Posts: 928
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 17 times
roundrobin wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, Tassie, just be careful what you say. Right now you stand out as the village idiot to me. Dork.

I take this as a direct insult. I will accept a public apology. I direct you to the forum's standards of behaviour.

Quote:
E. Forum Rules and Offences

1. Insults. Direct personal insult of another member, i.e., "You are an idiot." and all the variations.

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this"
Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy


Top
 Profile  
 


Don't want to see this advertisement? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!

PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:08 
Offline
Do you feel lucky (young) punk?
Do you feel lucky (young) punk?
User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 12:57
Posts: 5555
Location: USA
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 172 times
Blade: Juic Hinoki One Ply
FH: Tibhar 5Q
BH: Scandal
Posted on another forum;


BTW, celluloid production has started up again in the U.S. in answer to the needs of niche art and specialty markets. One of the uses is for the making of fine fountain pens.
http://www.americanartplastics.com/cell ... cing.shtml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:13 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2010, 19:16
Posts: 1400
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 62 times
Tassie52 wrote:
roundrobin wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, Tassie, just be careful what you say. Right now you stand out as the village idiot to me. Dork.

I take this as a direct insult. I will accept a public apology. I direct you to the forum's standards of behaviour.

Quote:
E. Forum Rules and Offences

1. Insults. Direct personal insult of another member, i.e., "You are an idiot." and all the variations.


I am sorry Tassie. That was uncalled for. I apologize.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:18 
Offline
Stir Crazy

Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 16:19
Posts: 928
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 17 times
roundrobin wrote:
Tassie52 wrote:
To Adham Sharara: I am very, very disappointed. I had hoped that there would be some evidence supplied - something we could check for ourselves. Your response is well reasoned if there is something to back it up. In the absence of references, this looks like misinformation.


Spreading misinformation is lying on purpose. Why the hold back?

The reason I hold back is because I want to have meaningful discussion with Adham Sharara. If I call someone (anyone) a liar, the chances are it makes them less likely to continue to have a conversation, which then defeats the purpose of the exercise. It's more fun talking to people than it is insulting them.

Which may sound hypocritical given that I push pretty hard sometimes. But... I'm getting used to apologising when my emotions gain the upper hand over my brain. :oops:

Thank you for your apology.

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this"
Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:31 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Lorre wrote:
I don't know if it means anything, but if you compare the first e-mail exchange with the second one, then there are three differences (besides off course the anwers given):

(1) He closes with "Adham" instead of "Adham Sharara, ITTF", which is more familiar.

(3) He's a lot funnier in the second e-mail than in the first one.


I can tell you, why. Of course, I do not know it for sure, it is just my guess. I think, the reason is, that you asked him convenient questions.

E.g. in your first mail you asked: "(3) Can you give, to tackle the discussion about the truth value about the coming "worldwide ban of celluloid" once and for all, prove about this coming "worldwide ban of celluloid" (e.g. web links, scientific articles, written document,...)? Please add them to your reply.". He gave you nothing, as we know. Then you was going to ask that again, as you told me, but you chose not to do that, instead you asked him something about Belgium: "In what kind of documents would I be able to find proof of this statement?". So you did not ask him to provide the proof for his statement, you only asked about the "kind of documents". So he is glad to not have been asked the tough question again.

It is very nice, that you wrote to him and I believe that we all greatly appreciate it. Nevertheless, we have essentially the same picture as before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:52 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Tassie52 wrote:
The reason I hold back is because I want to have meaningful discussion with Adham Sharara. If I call someone (anyone) a liar, the chances are it makes them less likely to continue to have a conversation, which then defeats the purpose of the exercise.


Tassie52, you are absolutely right on the theoretical level, that calling someone a liar does not constitute a meaningful discussion.

On the other hand, lying does not constitute a meaningful discussion either, maybe you can agree with me on that.

It is one thing, if a person is called a liar for no reason, and a different thing, if this person did lie and was caught. The same moment a person starts lying in the discussion, it is no longer meaningful. In this case the actual calling this person a liar does not change anything, it is just a logical conclusion.

A little bit more theory :) : if your opponent lied and you know that, and he knows that you know that, but you still pretend you believe him, than the whole thing is getting grotesque.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 11:18 
Offline
Stir Crazy

Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 16:19
Posts: 928
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 17 times
hookshot wrote:
BTW, celluloid production has started up again in the U.S. in answer to the needs of niche art and specialty markets. One of the uses is for the making of fine fountain pens.
http://www.americanartplastics.com/cell ... cing.shtml

Now this is interesting! I’ve inserted my comments in blue into what I’ve read at CELLULOID - SAFETY

The main risk in working with celluloid is fire. Celluloid will burn vigorously if ignited!
This we know. Nothing to see here, folks; move along.

Celluloid fell out of common usage so long ago that most recently-compiled safety data sheets are less than reliable. In many cases, information has been taken from data sheets for chemically related but very different materials, including what is essentially raw, unstabilized guncotton!
"most recently-compiled safety data sheets are less than reliable" - So, I wonder what “safety data sheets” the ITTF are working from? Perhaps they’re working with ones that suggest a danger where there isn’t one. OR Perhaps they’re working with reliable information that others haven’t yet caught up with? But we’ll only find out if someone tells us where to look.

Wearing a dust mask or respirator is advisable whenever plastic dust of any sort is in the air. Celluloid dust appears to be more of an irritant than a toxin.
“appears to be more of an irritant than a toxin” – which would mean that claims that celluloid is like asbestos (i.e. a toxin) may well be misinformed. (Having said that, I wouldn’t be breathing the stuff.)

Note that celluloid is not just nitrocellose - it is typically 23 to 33% camphor by weight. Though many of us grew up with camphor-bearing medicines, too much camphor can be harmful; read more about camphor here; a CDC data sheet for camphor may be consulted here.
Now the plot thickens! Note: celluloid is “typically 23 to 33% camphor”! Why is this important? Because the link takes us to this:
Toxicology
In larger quantities, it [camphor] is poisonous when ingested and can cause seizures, confusion, irritability, and neuromuscular hyperactivity. In extreme cases, even topical application of camphor may lead to hepatotoxicity. Lethal doses in adults are in the range 50–500 mg/kg (orally). Generally, two grams cause serious toxicity and four grams are potentially lethal.

In 1980, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration set a limit of 11% allowable camphor in consumer products, and totally banned products labeled as camphorated oil, camphor oil, camphor liniment, and camphorated liniment (except "white camphor essential oil", which contains no significant amount of camphor). Since alternative treatments exist, medicinal use of camphor is discouraged by the FDA, except for skin-related uses, such as medicated powders, which contain only small amounts of camphor.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration set a limit of 11% allowable camphor in consumer products, and totally banned products!

Could this be the missing link? Perhaps it is the camphor which is the problem. Perhaps working in a celluloid factory is as bad as Adham Sharara suggests – because of the camphor rather than the celluloid?

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the ITTF is right for all the wrong reasons, while we were wrong for all the right reasons?

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this"
Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy


Last edited by Tassie52 on 06 Dec 2011, 11:30, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 11:29 
Offline
Stir Crazy

Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 16:19
Posts: 928
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 17 times
Smartguy wrote:
A little bit more theory :) : if your opponent lied and you know that, and he knows that you know that, but you still pretend you believe him, than the whole thing is getting grotesque.

Yes, but what if I know that he knows I know he knows I know? :P

Seriously, I can't call someone else a liar unless I am absolutely convinced 100% that they are deliberately telling lies. I understand that many people on this forum believe that is what Adham Sharara and the ITTF are doing. But, while there is any shred of doubt in my mind (mine, not someone else's) then I will hold back. Personally, I don't feel I've been lied to. I suspect there is a whole load of misinformation going on, but that may very well be unintentional.

Would I expect someone else to confess that they were lying? Probably not. But I will hold out hope that there may be some clarification of the misinformation - if I can stay in the conversation long enough. Calling someone a liar won't help that process.

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this"
Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 11:54 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Tassie52 wrote:
Perhaps working in a celluloid factory is as bad as Adham Sharara suggests – because of the camphor rather than the celluloid?


Nice move, Tassie52. Of course, I am ready to put aside the obvious and believe, that you have already forgotten, what Adham Sharara did say. He was very specific more than one time and he did not mention camphor at all. But he intensively did talk about dangerous "fibres". This has nothing to do with camphor.

But, you know, maybe he will take "camphor" gratefully, under circumstances. In case he won't, just keep looking for anything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 12:05 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Tassie52 wrote:
In 1980, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration set a limit of 11% allowable camphor in consumer products, and totally banned products labeled as camphorated oil, camphor oil, camphor liniment, and camphorated liniment (except "white camphor essential oil", which contains no significant amount of camphor). Since alternative treatments exist, medicinal use of camphor is discouraged by the FDA, except for skin-related uses, such as medicated powders, which contain only small amounts of camphor.
[color=#0000FF]U.S. Food and Drug Administration set a limit of 11% allowable camphor in consumer products, and totally banned products!

Could this be the missing link? Perhaps it is the camphor which is the problem.


Another nice move, Tassie52, very nice.

First, they did not ban TT balls, did they? So you can not say, the TT balls are dangerous because of camphor.

Second, they did not ban camphor nor did they ban working with camphor. So you can not say that working with camphor is dangerous/unacceptable.

The only thing they did was, that they put a restriction on the percentage of camphor in consumer products and therefore certain products became banned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 12:11 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Tassie52 wrote:
Seriously, I can't call someone else a liar unless I am absolutely convinced 100% that they are deliberately telling lies.


I understand. This is absolutely your own choice, how you call people and it is your right to be uncertain about anything.

But you can not say, that OTHER people should not call someone a liar because YOU are not convinced, can you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 12:25 
Offline
Stir Crazy

Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 16:19
Posts: 928
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 17 times
Smartguy wrote:
Tassie52 wrote:
[color=#0000FF]U.S. Food and Drug Administration set a limit of 11% allowable camphor in consumer products, and totally banned products!


First, they did not ban TT balls, did they? So you can not say, the TT balls are dangerous because of camphor.

Second, they did not ban camphor nor did they ban working with camphor. So you can not say that working with camphor is dangerous/unacceptable.

The only thing they did was, that they put a restriction on the percentage of camphor in consumer products and therefore certain products became banned.

But you've only got one part of the story. The 11% is only relevant when we also know
Tassie52 wrote:
Note that celluloid is not just nitrocellose - it is typically 23 to 33% camphor by weight.

Put the two things together and ask yourself about working in a celluloid factory. (Note, I'm not talking about manufacture of TT balls, but the manufacture of celluloid itself.) If the celluloid requires somewhere between 2 and 3 times the limit set by the USFDA, what exposure are factory workers getting? Would you want to work there? Would you want your mother or wife or pregnant daughter to work there. (Assuming you're not a misogynist! :lol: )

Is this a neat sidestep away from the "celluloid fibre" misinformation. Yes and no. Hookshot posted the link to the Celluloid site, I just read and followed the links.

There is nothing concrete here to suggest fibres are an issue - ignoring the fact that we don't have reliable data sheets to work from. So, the ITTF is wrong on this evidence that there is going to be a worldwide ban on celluloid. But, there are safety concerns with the raw materials used in the manufacture of TT balls. It's not the end product: the only way someone is going to die is if they try to swallow a ball and choke on it! :rofl: But the question remains: is the manufacture of celluloid using camphor a health hazard?

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this"
Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 12:41 
Offline
Roar Talent
Roar Talent
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2011, 17:59
Posts: 1445
Location: Philippines
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Lot of debate going on here. But I admire Lorre and Tassie for asking Adham directly and sharing it to us. If Adham is guilty, I believe he would just ignore the email from Lorre or Tassie.
I think our current ball still passes the health and safety standard especially for advance nation. If not, this should have been banned by US, UK, EU, Japan etc.
What we need to validate is the claim that manufacturing of this kind of ball is hazardous to workers health. There should be a medical study on the sickness obtained from producers of this ball. There should be a third party to look and decide into this.

_________________
Setup 1 : Bty Mizutani Jun FH : Tenergy 80 Max BH : Acuda Blue P3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 12:45 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2010, 19:16
Posts: 1400
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 62 times
Tassie52 wrote:
Smartguy wrote:
Tassie52 wrote:
[color=#0000FF]U.S. Food and Drug Administration set a limit of 11% allowable camphor in consumer products, and totally banned products!


First, they did not ban TT balls, did they? So you can not say, the TT balls are dangerous because of camphor.

Second, they did not ban camphor nor did they ban working with camphor. So you can not say that working with camphor is dangerous/unacceptable.

The only thing they did was, that they put a restriction on the percentage of camphor in consumer products and therefore certain products became banned.

But you've only got one part of the story. The 11% is only relevant when we also know
Tassie52 wrote:
Note that celluloid is not just nitrocellose - it is typically 23 to 33% camphor by weight.

Put the two things together and ask yourself about working in a celluloid factory. (Note, I'm not talking about manufacture of TT balls, but the manufacture of celluloid itself.) If the celluloid requires somewhere between 2 and 3 times the limit set by the USFDA, what exposure are factory workers getting? Would you want to work there? Would you want your mother or wife or pregnant daughter to work there. (Assuming you're not a misogynist! :lol: )

Is this a neat sidestep away from the "celluloid fibre" misinformation. Yes and no. Hookshot posted the link to the Celluloid site, I just read and followed the links.

There is nothing concrete here to suggest fibres are an issue - ignoring the fact that we don't have reliable data sheets to work from. So, the ITTF is wrong on this evidence that there is going to be a worldwide ban on celluloid. But, there are safety concerns with the raw materials used in the manufacture of TT balls. It's not the end product: the only way someone is going to die is if they try to swallow a ball and choke on it! :rofl: But the question remains: is the manufacture of celluloid using camphor a health hazard?


I don't know where you are going with this misdirection, but I can assure you plastics manufacturing have always been extremely toxic and environmentally devastating. The manufacturing of the new ball ITTF intends to replace old one with is no different. Stop pushing the "safety" button. It makes you look silly. Not that I care, actually...


Last edited by roundrobin on 06 Dec 2011, 12:55, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 12:48 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Tassie52 wrote:
But you've only got one part of the story. The 11% is only relevant when we also know
Tassie52 wrote:
Note that celluloid is not just nitrocellose - it is typically 23 to 33% camphor by weight.

Put the two things together and ask yourself about working in a celluloid factory.


The fact is, that an American Food and Drug Administration dealt with hazards related to camphor, see above, and working with camphor is not banned.

<edit Mod: sarcasm removed>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 386 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 26  Next




All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




Don't forget to 'LIKE' our forum on Facebook if you enjoy the content: