Diet and Health was Re: Are my eyes deceiving me...
John Nolan
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> Most say that if you have a balanced diet there is no need for
> supplements.
>
Absolutely agreed, provided,
a. You are healthy
b. Your diet is truly balanced and has everything your particular body
needs.
There are some who say, and I tend to agree with them, that it is almost
impossible for most to have an adequate diet. This is because much of our
food, though looking good (?) and tasting reasonable, just does not have
sufficient of the nutrients we need.
Whilst a healthy body may be able to manufacture some of the deficiencies,
it can only do it if the starting blocks are there.
However, this manufacture uses enzymes and energy. A less healthy body may
not be able to cope.
The more stress we are under, the more substances such as anti-oxidants are
needed by the body. Some of that stress comes from all the alien chemicals
that are in the Environment.
I suppose that there are some people who are not aware that they are below
par because their deterioration has been slow. But there are others who are
only too acutely aware.
Some have said that an adequate diet for most people should have not 5 but
10 portions of fruit and vegetable daily. But this is almost impossible to
achieve, hence the need for food supplements.
There is that well known saying, "You are what you eat".
Not true.
More accurately, "You are what you absorb".
People whose unwellness includes a defective digestive system, may be eating
the right stuff but not absorbing it. Such people probably need one or more
digestive enzymes. Again, that may not work for those who have had some of
their gut removed. Everyone is different.
I hope to resurrect my website which was sunk by Freedom2. Until that time,
I would be willing to set up an email list for those interested, or try to
help individuals.
I have tried to put something on argonet.acorn.binaries But this NG may not
be working, at present.
John N.
--
_ _________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk
Ray Dawson
<john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> There are some who say, and I tend to agree with them, that it is
> almost impossible for most to have an adequate diet. This is because
> much of our food, though looking good (?) and tasting reasonable, just
> does not have sufficient of the nutrients we need.
If that is so, I'm surprised the human race has survived all these
millions of years.
Cheers,
Ray D
--
Ray Dawson
r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk
MagRay - the audio & braille specialists
Dave Plowman (News)
> but 10 portions of fruit and vegetable daily. But this is almost
> impossible to achieve, hence the need for food supplements.
I'm sorry, but I can't see food supplements including all the things in a
variety of fruit and vegetables. They will be synthesised to contain what
the makers *say* are the important elements. If this were truly the case
we wouldn't be advised to eat all that fruit and vegetable matter. Then
there's the cost. It's often the poor and elderly who have the worst
diets, and encouraging them to rely on supplements is not cost effective
compared to the real thing.
--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John Nolan
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <na.aab89b4dd9.a...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Some have said that an adequate diet for most people should have not 5
> > but 10 portions of fruit and vegetable daily. But this is almost
> > impossible to achieve, hence the need for food supplements.
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't see food supplements including all the things in a
> variety of fruit and vegetables. They will be synthesised to contain what
> the makers *say* are the important elements.
The particular company I am talking about does not synthesise things, they
extract them from living plants.
AFAIK Medical professionals spent about 15 years travelling the world
talking to all sorts of people to discover what plants they reckoned have
healing properties.
> If this were truly the case
> we wouldn't be advised to eat all that fruit and vegetable matter.
Not necessarily true. Ordinary food provides bulk, which is also needed. Nor
did I say that the food supplements provide ALL the things. They are
supplements.
> Then
> there's the cost. It's often the poor and elderly who have the worst
> diets, and encouraging them to rely on supplements is not cost effective
> compared to the real thing.
I am not trying to encourage anyone, who does not need them, to rely on
supplements. Nor am I dodging the question of cost. If our politicians were
more sensible and our medical profession were less in the hands of drug
companies, we could get the supplements we need on the NHS and it might cost
us all a lot less.
If you can tell me how I can get an adequate diet via ordinary food, I
should like to know. But how do you or I know that that food is adequate
without having it analysed ?
Personally, when I look around and see so many unwell people both old and
young, I KNOW that there is something wrong.
With all our wonderful politicians and doctors, why did it take Jamie Oliver
to show up something that was staring some of us in the face ?
I have read a lost about this. Perhaps you hae read more and know more. If
so, I would value what you can add to what I have said. If others, having
read all I have read, jump to a different conclusion, I should love to know.
John Nolan
<R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <na.aab89b4dd9.a...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, John Nolan
> <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > There are some who say, and I tend to agree with them, that it is
> > almost impossible for most to have an adequate diet. This is because
> > much of our food, though looking good (?) and tasting reasonable, just
> > does not have sufficient of the nutrients we need.
>
> If that is so, I'm surprised the human race has survived all these
> millions of years.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ray D
bites. You ignore much of what I have said. This is a serious subject, for
some, and deserves better.
I have come to my conclusions after many years and much reading. I am always
willing to stand correction. I am also willing to let people have my own
sources of information and see what conclusions they come to.
Ray Dawson
<john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4dda31...@raydawson.com>, Ray Dawson
> <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > In article <na.aab89b4dd9.a...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, John
> > Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > There are some who say, and I tend to agree with them, that it is
> > > almost impossible for most to have an adequate diet. This is
> > > because much of our food, though looking good (?) and tasting
> > > reasonable, just does not have sufficient of the nutrients we need.
> >
> > If that is so, I'm surprised the human race has survived all these
> > millions of years.
> >
> Ray, I think that that is a bit shallow.
I don't think it is - it certainly wasn't meant to be. Brief maybe.
> It is easy to make short text bites. You ignore much of what I have
> said. This is a serious subject, for some, and deserves better.
A serious subject for us all.
> I have come to my conclusions after many years and much reading. I am
> always willing to stand correction. I am also willing to let people
> have my own sources of information and see what conclusions they come
> to.
I'm sorry John, but I don't accept some of your statements - especially
the one I responded to above.
Mankind has evolved of many years and, at some point, made the transition
from primate and other animal life forms. I'm willing to concede that
some of that evolution has been necessary to accomodate variations in
previous diets, but the simple truth is that man has survived.
There were no dietary supplements millions/thousands of years ago and man
had to exist and grow on what food was available. That food was not
always the best for our health and our bodies did sometimes physically
suffer - but mankind overcame it.
In this day and age we are much more able to have a perfectly adequate
diet - without artificial supplements. Not all choose to eat the best
diet, but it is nonetheless still there.
If you look at diets in third world countries, I might tend to agree that
they aren't adequate. But on the other hand, neither are they looking
good or tasting reasonable.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I can't see food supplements including all the things
> > in a variety of fruit and vegetables. They will be synthesised to
> > contain what the makers *say* are the important elements.
> The particular company I am talking about does not synthesise things,
> they extract them from living plants.
Maybe - but this is still not the whole fruit or vegetable. They will
extract what they consider to be of benefit. But the whole idea of a
balanced diet is the fibre, etc, and maybe even the traces of things
considered to be poisons if taken in bulk.
> AFAIK Medical professionals spent
> about 15 years travelling the world talking to all sorts of people to
> discover what plants they reckoned have healing properties.
Surely that's a different subject?
> > If this were truly the case we wouldn't be advised to eat all that
> > fruit and vegetable matter.
> Not necessarily true. Ordinary food provides bulk, which is also needed.
> Nor did I say that the food supplements provide ALL the things. They are
> supplements.
But as I said not needed if you have a balanced diet - which is very easy
these days with all types of fruit and vegetables readily available.
> > Then there's the cost. It's often the poor and elderly who have the
> > worst diets, and encouraging them to rely on supplements is not cost
> > effective compared to the real thing.
> I am not trying to encourage anyone, who does not need them, to rely on
> supplements. Nor am I dodging the question of cost. If our politicians
> were more sensible and our medical profession were less in the hands of
> drug companies, we could get the supplements we need on the NHS and it
> might cost us all a lot less.
*Food* on the NHS? Madness.
> If you can tell me how I can get an adequate diet via ordinary food, I
> should like to know. But how do you or I know that that food is adequate
> without having it analysed ?
Well, we are all living longer than ever...
> Personally, when I look around and see so many unwell people both old
> and young, I KNOW that there is something wrong.
Perhaps you move in different circles. There always have been unwell
people - of course the older you get the more your peers will succumb.
> With all our wonderful politicians and doctors, why did it take Jamie
> Oliver to show up something that was staring some of us in the face ?
It didn't didn't take Jamie Oliver to tell me junk food is just that. Or
that you would struggle to make a decent lunch for a few pennies.
> I have read a lost about this. Perhaps you hae read more and know more.
> If so, I would value what you can add to what I have said. If others,
> having read all I have read, jump to a different conclusion, I should
> love to know.
--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.
John Nolan
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <na.e537dd4dda.a...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Maybe - but this is still not the whole fruit or vegetable. They will
> extract what they consider to be of benefit. But the whole idea of a
> balanced diet is the fibre, etc, and maybe even the traces of things
> considered to be poisons if taken in bulk.
>
> > AFAIK Medical professionals spent
> > about 15 years travelling the world talking to all sorts of people to
> > discover what plants they reckoned have healing properties.
>
> Surely that's a different subject?
No, I don't think so. According to many medical people, things are going
wrong all the time in our bodies, e.g. free radicals and cancer cells. For
body processes are not 100% perfect. We survive because our bodies also have
immune systems and other processes whereby they are constantly healing
themselves.
There was a time when I thought that cancer was a death warrant. The first
time I heard that it might not be was when a top doctor, who happened to be
one of HM's doctors and a friend of my father said that it is likely we all
have cancer cells being produced in our bodies all the time but that our
immune systems are knocking them off.
But where do our bodies get this ability for self-healing ? Surely it must
be from what we eat and drink. But, if our food is deficient, as I believe
it often is, unless grown and harvested in the most natural ways possible,
then some of those chemicals are deficient. Hence the need for some people
to either improve their diet to adequacy by normal means, or to take food
supplements to make up the deficiencies.
>
> > Not necessarily true. Ordinary food provides bulk, which is also needed.
> > Nor did I say that the food supplements provide ALL the things. They are
> > supplements.
>
> But as I said not needed if you have a balanced diet - which is very easy
> these days with all types of fruit and vegetables readily available.
Well, you have a greater faith in the Superarkets than I have.
I am not convinced that tomatoes, for example, if picked green and reddened
artificially, have all the goodies in that they should have etc. etc.
>
> *Food* on the NHS? Madness.
Why ? I am talking off special foods. Why madness if some foods achieve
healing without the side effects of drugs. Instead of reading what I say,
why not read things I have read written by highly qualified people ?
>
> > If you can tell me how I can get an adequate diet via ordinary food, I
> > should like to know. But how do you or I know that that food is adequate
> > without having it analysed ?
>
> Well, we are all living longer than ever...
Not true, on average yes. I happen to have had a wife die at 39 and and
another young friend at 37. I wish someone like me had been around when my
wife was sick. Certain top members of the medical profession - a Harley
Street counsultant no less - didn't exactly shine !! :-((
>
> > Personally, when I look around and see so many unwell people both old
> > and young, I KNOW that there is something wrong.
>
> Perhaps you move in different circles. There always have been unwell
> people - of course the older you get the more your peers will succumb.
Well, I keep in touch with a wide range of people and ages, down to 6 and 7.
> > With all our wonderful politicians and doctors, why did it take Jamie
> > Oliver to show up something that was staring some of us in the face ?
>
> It didn't didn't take Jamie Oliver to tell me junk food is just that. Or
> that you would struggle to make a decent lunch for a few pennies.
I wish people would read what I said. I did not say YOU. I said "wonderful
politicians and doctors" - cynical mode. But if you are a truly wonderful
politician or doctor then Praise the Lord ! I know that there are some
around who are not totally dazzled by the drugs companies.
>
> > I have read a lot about this. Perhaps you hae read more and know more.
> > If so, I would value what you can add to what I have said. If others,
> > having read all I have read, jump to a different conclusion, I should
> > love to know.
I notice you did not comment on this last point.
I just hope that there are some reading this, who might begin to realise
that they don't always need the drugs companies to keep them sub-healthy. It
is possible that improved diet could at least make them much better etc.
etc.
And no, I have not said that ALL drugs companies and their products are bad
etc. etc.
But there are none so blind as those who won't see. There are those with
closed minds and those with open minds.
I am always happy for anyone who feels that I might just have a point, to
contact me. I have plenty of testimonies I can send them. Not on every
ailment, of course, but a fair number.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > AFAIK Medical professionals spent
> > > about 15 years travelling the world talking to all sorts of people to
> > > discover what plants they reckoned have healing properties.
> >
> > Surely that's a different subject?
> No, I don't think so. According to many medical people, things are going
> wrong all the time in our bodies, e.g. free radicals and cancer cells.
> For body processes are not 100% perfect. We survive because our bodies
> also have immune systems and other processes whereby they are constantly
> healing themselves.
No argument there.
> There was a time when I thought that cancer was a death warrant.
It still is with many types.
> The first time I heard that it might not be was when a top doctor, who
> happened to be one of HM's doctors and a friend of my father said that
> it is likely we all have cancer cells being produced in our bodies all
> the time but that our immune systems are knocking them off.
Well, yes.
> But where do our bodies get this ability for self-healing ? Surely it
> must be from what we eat and drink.
Think you've missed out the obvious one - the genes. The susceptibility to
many types of cancer appear to be hereditary. As with many other illnesses.
> But, if our food is deficient, as I believe it often is, unless grown
> and harvested in the most natural ways possible, then some of those
> chemicals are deficient.
So food grown other than naturally is bad, yet eating man synthesised
products like food supplements is good?
> Hence the need for some people to either improve their diet to adequacy
> by normal means, or to take food supplements to make up the deficiencies.
If indeed these things actually do make up the deficiencies. You see, if
we knew what those deficiencies were, it would be possible to recommend
the correct natural food?
> > > Not necessarily true. Ordinary food provides bulk, which is also
> > > needed. Nor did I say that the food supplements provide ALL the
> > > things. They are supplements.
> > But as I said not needed if you have a balanced diet - which is very
> > easy these days with all types of fruit and vegetables readily
> > available.
> Well, you have a greater faith in the Superarkets than I have.
Who said anything about supermarkets? I have a choice of local markets.
But supermarkets sell food supplements too.
> I am not convinced that tomatoes, for example, if picked green and
> reddened artificially, have all the goodies in that they should have
> etc. etc.
Tomatoes aren't really a natural food in the UK. Or are many other
vegetables and fruits we've become used to. However, if you're saying
someone can synthesise or extract that magic ingredient which is missing
if picked green, then it must be known what it is.
> > *Food* on the NHS? Madness.
> Why ? I am talking off special foods. Why madness if some foods achieve
> healing without the side effects of drugs. Instead of reading what I
> say, why not read things I have read written by highly qualified people ?
So you're saying food supplements actually heal? That's rather different
from preventing some illnesses. And, I'd say, rather dangerous.
> >
> > > If you can tell me how I can get an adequate diet via ordinary food,
> > > I should like to know. But how do you or I know that that food is
> > > adequate without having it analysed ?
> >
> > Well, we are all living longer than ever...
> Not true, on average yes. I happen to have had a wife die at 39 and and
> another young friend at 37. I wish someone like me had been around when
> my wife was sick. Certain top members of the medical profession - a
> Harley Street counsultant no less - didn't exactly shine !! :-((
Could be that at one time they'd have died at birth - or through some
childhood disease. Improved medical child care - and of course diet -
means that many that would survive to adulthood.
> > > Personally, when I look around and see so many unwell people both
> > > old and young, I KNOW that there is something wrong.
> >
> > Perhaps you move in different circles. There always have been unwell
> > people - of course the older you get the more your peers will succumb.
> Well, I keep in touch with a wide range of people and ages, down to 6
> and 7.
But statistics still say we, on average, are living much longer. Of course
there will be exceptions to this rule.
>
> > > With all our wonderful politicians and doctors, why did it take
> > > Jamie Oliver to show up something that was staring some of us in the
> > > face ?
> >
> > It didn't didn't take Jamie Oliver to tell me junk food is just that.
> > Or that you would struggle to make a decent lunch for a few pennies.
> I wish people would read what I said. I did not say YOU. I said
> "wonderful politicians and doctors" - cynical mode.
Publicity is achieved through the meja. A doctor or politician saying
school dinners are poor doesn't have the same clout as a 'personality'.
Unless you're saying third world poverty was unheard of until Geldorf came
along. Oh - and both these personalities have done very well out of the
surrounding publicity - regardless of how genuine they are.
> But if you are a truly wonderful politician or doctor then Praise the
> Lord ! I know that there are some around who are not totally dazzled by
> the drugs companies.
Your food supplement company is also a drug company...
> >
> > > I have read a lot about this. Perhaps you hae read more and know
> > > more. If so, I would value what you can add to what I have said. If
> > > others, having read all I have read, jump to a different conclusion,
> > > I should love to know.
> I notice you did not comment on this last point.
I've been around long enough to realise that research will always turn up
'facts' that support your beliefs.
> I just hope that there are some reading this, who might begin to realise
> that they don't always need the drugs companies to keep them
> sub-healthy. It is possible that improved diet could at least make them
> much better etc. etc.
Good diet has always been important in preventing illness. Nothing new
there.
> And no, I have not said that ALL drugs companies and their products are
> bad etc. etc.
> But there are none so blind as those who won't see. There are those with
> closed minds and those with open minds.
> I am always happy for anyone who feels that I might just have a point,
> to contact me. I have plenty of testimonies I can send them. Not on
> every ailment, of course, but a fair number.
Being devil's advocate, if you take the worse snake oil product on the
market in any field, you'll always find loads of testimonials on just how
effective it is.
--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *
Michael Harding
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4dda31...@raydawson.com>, Ray Dawson
> <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > In article <na.aab89b4dd9.a...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, John Nolan
> > <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > There are some who say, and I tend to agree with them, that it is
> > > almost impossible for most to have an adequate diet. This is because
> > > much of our food, though looking good (?) and tasting reasonable, just
> > > does not have sufficient of the nutrients we need.
> >
> > If that is so, I'm surprised the human race has survived all these
> > millions of years.
> Ray, I think that that is a bit shallow. It is easy to make short text
> bites. You ignore much of what I have said. This is a serious subject, for
> some, and deserves better.
Isn't there a confusion of two separate issues?
Ray's arguing the case that human beings have had an adequate diet to
survive.
John is arguing that the average western european diet isn't adequate
for longevity.
Both right?
Michael Harding
--
Rev. Preb. M. D. Harding mdha...@ormail.co.uk
John Nolan
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> So you're saying food supplements actually heal? That's rather different
> from preventing some illnesses. And, I'd say, rather dangerous.
If anyone can find anywhere in this thread where I have said that, or even
implied that, please let me know. I think a truer summary of what I have
said is that, if the body is given all the substances that it needs to
become more healthy, then it is often more capable of achieving self-healing
which, surely, is what health is all about.
But, I say again, why not read what some qualified doctors have said, and
not rely on me ? I am quite willing to email anyone copies.
On this thread, there are many inconsistencies in the arguments of those who
disagree with me. Often they simply ignore what I have said, or misinterpret
it. But, there is a certain senior doctor, Prof.(I think) John Axon of
Oxford University and past President of the Royal Soc. of Medicine, who
would probably agree with most of what I have said. If he disagreed it would
probably be to correct me in a constructive way. Of course, and fortunately,
he is not alone, although probably in a minority in the medical profession.
When I have my website up and running, I shall try to answer most of the
points people put up. But those of you who are truly interested and want to
do some reading or take it further, well, get in touch.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > So you're saying food supplements actually heal? That's rather
> > different from preventing some illnesses. And, I'd say, rather
> > dangerous.
> If anyone can find anywhere in this thread where I have said that, or
> even implied that, please let me know.
Well, you conveniently snipped the relevant bit. ;-) Here it is again. :-
**********************
From: John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Diet and Health was Re: Are my eyes deceiving me...
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:30
Newsgroups: argonet.zfc
Why ? I am talking off special foods. Why madness if some foods achieve
healing without the side effects of drugs.
***********************
You seem to imply that 'drugs' are all bad, 'food' always good. But of
course many medical drugs are an extract of foodstuff - or perhaps more
correctly plants. Aspirin being perhaps the most famous one. Not that this
makes it free from side effects.
--
*Born free - taxed to death *
Dave Plowman (News)
pv <usenet...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> > So you're saying food supplements actually heal? That's rather
> > different from preventing some illnesses. And, I'd say, rather
> > dangerous.
> Anything can heal! I don't believe John specifically claimed that any
> food supplements had healing properties, but as I believe that the mind
> is capable of healing, then sure, I expect they /can/ heal.
It's true that most common illnesses are self healing, perhaps.
> I never take pills of any description, as I believe that all illness and
> health is in the mind.
I can think of plenty where people would die without drugs. Diabetes
springs to mind, as my father suffered from this. Of course it's likely
diet has an effect on the development of this illness.
> I've never been ill in my life (I probably also
> have about the unhealthiest diet of anyone I know), but I live by the
> philosophy of everyone being able to create their own reality. Positive
> thinking can and WILL heal any ailment.
Perhaps you need to tell all those millions dying of AIDS related
illnesses in Africa this? Because suitable treatment allows a near normal
lifespan.
> Perhaps it's all a matter of faith which, at this time of the year, many
> people will be aware of their individual faiths.
Then those with 'faith' would never be ill, those without die early? If
this were the case Darwin's law would soon apply where everyone had
'faith'. But the reverse appears to be happening.
> Perhaps it's not the food supplement doing the healing, but the mind,
> and the supplement is merely acting as a placebo -
> http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-placebo12dec12,0,3405707.story?coll=la-home-health
> I've no idea either way, but I believe that the mind is a lot more
> powerful than many people seem to think.
I don't think anyone would disagree with this - if you actively fight a
disease you are more likely to beat it than if you simply lie down to die.
--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Lionel Smith
Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> That's not a statement of a requirement to take supplements but that
> anyone taking supplements and deriving benefit needs to look at their
> diet and find out what is wrong with it.
Indeed. However modern methods of farming, food storage and
transportation are not conducive to a balanced diet for all, or many for
that matter.
Also the method of distribution is increasingly skewed against those
without easy access to affordable transport. This is why the poor and the
elderly are missing out.
Take the case of citrus fruit for example, that well known container of
vitamin C the lack of which led to scurvy in sailors. How often have you
purchased oranges of late to discover that they have been kept
overchilled and overlong? Within a couple of days of purchasing those not
eaten are beginning to rot. I have seen this increasingly of late,
particularly with a Spanish variety (Navalino I think they were) sold
through both Somerfield and Marks and Spencer.
You see some, like myself, cannot go to the supermarket everyday and the
last nearby, within reasonable walking distance, greengrocery outlet has
closed and thus cannot purchase to suit consumption patterns. Neither can
we easily go back to the store with the rotten fruit to throw at the
store manager. Bring back the stocks!
IMHO the supermarkets have had a very deleterious effect on diet because
of their poor record with handling and selling fresh produce. This
includes the more nutritious and cheaper cuts of meat which good cooks of
yester-year knew how to prepare and serve for a delicious and satisfying
meal.
Supermarkets would much rather sell you high value added processed food.
Many too busy with life fall into the trap of purchasing this carp to the
exclusion of fresh produce. So successful have the supermarkets been at
weaning people off fresh fruit and veg, by supplying increasingly poor,
tasteless or tough, produce that many never learn the taste of the real
article. Force grown under polythene Elsanta strawberries anyone?
Now we are at a stage where a large proportion of the population do not
know how to cook, opening and heating a can of baked beans can be a
challenge. Which reminds me, baked beans are not what they uaed to be.
In fact I can honestly say that in the days when I smoked I tried giving
up a few times but every time I tried it the food tasted like **** so I
went back on the weed. Of course I no longer touch those things, not
these last five years, but I still have the opinion that much food today
does not taste as it should, or have a pleasant texture.
Stringy oranges from Sainsbury's or rotting ones from there or Marks &
Sparks and Somerfield. As for Asda or TESCO?
There needs to be a fundamental shift in the food chain. Prime producers
(farmers) need to be paid a price which can sustain their production
without subsidies. This does not mean that the shopper should suddenly
have to pay vastly higher prices. The middlemen, particularly processors
and supermarkets will need to learn that they cannot expect profits to
increase year on year without something giving. The environment as well
as the producer and consumer will suffer else. At the moment subsidies to
farmers are being absorbed by the profits which the likes of supermarkets
make.
In other words taxpayers are helping the bottom line of supermarkets and
the bonuses of those who run them. Of course shareholders are there too
at this trough with hedge funds and other financial institutions raking
it in and pension funds for some being propped up.
This is not a free market, certainly not as Adam Smith would have
recognised it, but one heavily rigged in favour of the already very
wealthy.
Bah! Humbug!
Lionel
--
/ / / ___/ 4 children | Sea Vixen for pugnacity
/ / ionel A.| \ mith 9 grandchildren, | Hunter for elegance
/ /____ __\ | no wonder life is a breeze | Phantom for clout
/_______/ /_____/ http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/ | ZFC B+4+5
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Dave Plowman (News)
Lionel Smith <lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Also the method of distribution is increasingly skewed against those
> without easy access to affordable transport. This is why the poor and the
> elderly are missing out.
Of course it must depend on where you live, but I've got four good markets
within easy reach, and all those over 60 in London get totally free PT.
> Take the case of citrus fruit for example, that well known container of
> vitamin C the lack of which led to scurvy in sailors. How often have you
> purchased oranges of late to discover that they have been kept
> overchilled and overlong? Within a couple of days of purchasing those not
> eaten are beginning to rot. I have seen this increasingly of late,
> particularly with a Spanish variety (Navalino I think they were) sold
> through both Somerfield and Marks and Spencer.
Yes - I don't by any fresh food from supermarkets if I can avoid it.
However, I have one of those Tesco Metros close by, and being small has a
much faster turnover of fresh fruit and veg, and those bought there seem
to last better.
> You see some, like myself, cannot go to the supermarket everyday and the
> last nearby, within reasonable walking distance, greengrocery outlet has
> closed and thus cannot purchase to suit consumption patterns. Neither can
> we easily go back to the store with the rotten fruit to throw at the
> store manager. Bring back the stocks!
> IMHO the supermarkets have had a very deleterious effect on diet because
> of their poor record with handling and selling fresh produce. This
> includes the more nutritious and cheaper cuts of meat which good cooks of
> yester-year knew how to prepare and serve for a delicious and satisfying
> meal.
Luckily, I've still got a local butcher. Expensive, though, but much
better quality.
> Supermarkets would much rather sell you high value added processed food.
> Many too busy with life fall into the trap of purchasing this carp to the
> exclusion of fresh produce. So successful have the supermarkets been at
> weaning people off fresh fruit and veg, by supplying increasingly poor,
> tasteless or tough, produce that many never learn the taste of the real
> article. Force grown under polythene Elsanta strawberries anyone?
Perhaps that's our fault for wanting out of season fruit and vegetables?
Certainly out of season strawberries may look like the real thing but
certainly don't taste the same...
> Now we are at a stage where a large proportion of the population do not
> know how to cook, opening and heating a can of baked beans can be a
> challenge. Which reminds me, baked beans are not what they uaed to be.
They've reduced the salt content. ;-)
> In fact I can honestly say that in the days when I smoked I tried giving
> up a few times but every time I tried it the food tasted like **** so I
> went back on the weed. Of course I no longer touch those things, not
> these last five years, but I still have the opinion that much food today
> does not taste as it should, or have a pleasant texture.
Think our sense of taste and smell deteriorates with age as does much
else. ;-(
--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.*
Ray Dawson
<steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4ddb4d12...@orpheusnet.co.uk>, Lionel Smith
> <lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > producers (farmers) need to be paid a price which can sustain their
> > production without subsidies. This does not mean that the shopper
> > should suddenly have to pay vastly higher prices.
> As Chris would point out our produce tends to come in from a variety of
> outlets. It helps that we haven't yet reached crumbly stage and that a
> short drive will get us to not only any one of Tesco, Morrisson, Asda,
> Sainsbury but also to a couple of different farm shops and also the
> HDRA (known as Ryton Gardens to some) - I dare say I could walk to the
> latter but it would be about 30 minutes walk.
Although we do a regular weekly Sainsburys shop, we do tend to buy our
vegetables from a local shop a few minutes walk away. To be honest, the
sight of stinking rotting cauliflowers or sprouts and yellow brocilli in
Sainsburys is enough to put you off vegetables for life.
> Mind you, like my father always did I get milk from the local milkman.
> It's sort of a community service - you pay a bit more for the milk and
> the pensioners get a regular home visit, you stop buying the milk the
> milkman goes out of business and nobody but the nearest neighbours know
> those pensioners exist and if they are busy for a day or two...
Although we used to have the Express, United Dairies and Co-op milk
floats competing for custom in our street, we haven't had a milk delivery
of any sort for some years now.
Dave Plowman (News)
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Although we do a regular weekly Sainsburys shop, we do tend to buy our
> vegetables from a local shop a few minutes walk away. To be honest, the
> sight of stinking rotting cauliflowers or sprouts and yellow brocilli in
> Sainsburys is enough to put you off vegetables for life.
I've never seen rotten vegetables on sale in Sainsburys. If I did, I'd
complain.
--
*Starfishes have no brains *
Ray Dawson
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ddb9c...@raydawson.com>, Ray Dawson
> <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Although we do a regular weekly Sainsburys shop, we do tend to buy
> > our vegetables from a local shop a few minutes walk away. To be
> > honest, the sight of stinking rotting cauliflowers or sprouts and
> > yellow brocilli in Sainsburys is enough to put you off vegetables for
> > life.
> I've never seen rotten vegetables on sale in Sainsburys. If I did, I'd
> complain.
I have - frequently. I always complain, but as there is no such thing as
a store manager any more, there's no one person to take responsibility.
I have threatened to take photographs and send them to the Environmental
Health department, but the produce manager I spoke to threatened me with
expulsion from the store if I did. The security man was standing nearby,
listening intently.
Dave Plowman (News)
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've never seen rotten vegetables on sale in Sainsburys. If I did, I'd
> > complain.
> I have - frequently. I always complain, but as there is no such thing as
> a store manager any more, there's no one person to take responsibility.
> I have threatened to take photographs and send them to the Environmental
> Health department, but the produce manager I spoke to threatened me with
> expulsion from the store if I did. The security man was standing nearby,
> listening intently.
Complain to head office. I have a choice of 5 Sainsburys round here and
have never seen this. Only supermarket I've ever seen rotten stuff in was
the local Safeway, now Morrisons.
--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*
Lionel Smith
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I have threatened to take photographs and send them to the Environmental
> Health department, but the produce manager I spoke to threatened me with
> expulsion from the store if I did. The security man was standing nearby,
> listening intently.
I must borrow the wife's little Minolta Xi next time I am looking at
'fresh' fruit and veg' in any supermarket.
As it happens the wife was on the lookout for oranges today but refused
to buy the visibly deteriorating Spanish Navalino in M&S. Obviously still
coming out of the same batch that has been in cold storage since the
stock of good Australian 'Lane Late' sold out.
This is an prime example of the problem with food and a diet generally
lacking in vitamins is the norm for many - they have little choice.
Nice to see that 'The Square Mile' has enjoyed a year of record bonuses!
:-(( Pah!
Now I hear that a French consortium is after buying up what remains of
our dairy industry.
Godamn Crapauds!
Political correctness - what's that all about then if politicians are the
most unethical breed of toerags on the planet, after many lawyers and
financiers that is - from the ranks of which many of them, politicians,
come.
Ben Crick
<lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Now I hear that a French consortium is after buying up what remains of
> our dairy industry.
>
> Godamn Crapauds!
Dairy Crest Ltd stoutly denied that it had received a takeover
approach from any dairy consortium anywhere in the world. Its
shares however remain high (buy on the rumour, sell on the news).
Les crapauds demeurent dans le trou, apparément.
Ben
--
_ __________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk
Revd Ben Crick BA CF <ben....@NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk> ZFC Hf
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington on sea, Kent CT7 9TD (UK)
Acorn RPC700 Kinetic RO4.03 and Castle Iyonix X100 RO 5.06 Ethernet
* Nothing ruins the truth like stretching it.
Mr. D.H. Robinson
impoverishment of soil due to heavy agricultural use and the subsequent
steady removal of trace elements that have no obvious source of replacement.
Does the soil become deprived of necessary trace elements after years of
cultivation?
Dave.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ d....@argonet.co.uk
John Nolan
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > So you're saying food supplements actually heal? That's rather
> > > different from preventing some illnesses. And, I'd say, rather
> > > dangerous.
>
> > If anyone can find anywhere in this thread where I have said that, or
> > even implied that, please let me know.
>
> Well, you conveniently snipped the relevant bit. ;-) Here it is again. :-
>
that one thing I am not is devious. If shown to be wrong, I am quite willing
to admit it. But, you obviously disagree strongly with my view point, as do
many others. But a majority is not always right.
> **********************
>
> From: John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Diet and Health was Re: Are my eyes deceiving me...
> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:30
> Newsgroups: argonet.zfc
>
> Why ? I am talking off special foods. Why madness if some foods achieve
> healing without the side effects of drugs.
Sorry, and thank you, Dave. I accept your point. But, what I meant to say,
which is more consistent with what I have said,
Why madness if some foods help the body to achieve healing without the side
^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^
effects of drugs.
>
> ***********************
>
> You seem to imply that 'drugs' are all bad,
Well, again, I have written a lot here, maybe too much and I have always
tried to hedge what I say, knowing that I am entering a "lino's den" !!
I should have said, " effects of some drugs"
^^^^
> You seem to imply that 'food' always good.
Well, my Chambers dictionary defines food as,
" that which, being digested, nourishes the body"
I hardly think that that can imply something that is not good.
However, as Dave, or someone, pointed out, individuality (genes) come into
it. What is one man's food can be another man's poison. Allergies to peanuts
is a case in point. (BTW I was quoting. In these PC days i was was not
excluding women from the human race !!)
Also the human body can become adapted to different diets over a longer or
shorter period of time. So what's best for the average European, Oriental or
Inuit, might be very different.
> But of
> course many medical drugs are an extract of foodstuff - or perhaps more
> correctly plants. Aspirin being perhaps the most famous one. Not that this
> makes it free from side effects.
Well, that's where most of them started. But I am not convinced that Man's
(oh dear Humankind's) attempts at going one better than Nature by
synthesising is necessarily an improvement.
I actually believe that it could well be the complex of things found in
Nature may be more beneficial than "the active ingredient" on its own. The
food supplements I am talking about are not single substances. The matter is
obviously exceedingly complex.
--
From Glorious Gloucestershire, near Lydney, using :------------
John Nolan
<mdha...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> Isn't there a confusion of two separate issues?
>
> Ray's arguing the case that human beings have had an adequate diet to
> survive.
> John is arguing that the average western european diet isn't adequate
> for longevity.
>
> Both right?
Spot on, as long as the word "average" is worked in in copious amounts.
Thank you, Michael.
I do not happen to be the Govts Chief Medical Officer whose aim should
include helping the average Brit to be healthier.
I am just an individual who knows of several suffering individuals whom he
wants to help. There are 2 young Mums with brain tumours. Another died 2
years ago, her 2 medical sisters having (apparently) been dead against food
supplements. Her father, a personal friend of long standing agreed with me,
to at least give them a try.
As a footnote, whilst writing this, the sister of one of the said young
women has just turned up. These were almost her words, "The hospital is
saying that my sister is doing much better than they expected."
Yes, I know that this stuff is not dramatic like a good cough mixture. Those
opposed to my view can easily say, "Well, she might have been like that
without the supplements."
But then, she might not etc. etc. etc. !!
--
From Glorious Gloucestershire, near Lydney, using :------------
John Nolan
> This is not a free market, certainly not as Adam Smith would have
> recognised it, but one heavily rigged in favour of the already very
> wealthy.
>
> Bah! Humbug!
Give that man the prize organic veg. selection.
Thank you Lionel.
We are also up against an ignorant, urban govt. 'cos that's where most
people live.
--
From Glorious Gloucestershire, near Lydney, using :------------
John Nolan
> vitamin C the lack of which led to scurvy in sailors.
Now there's a strange thing. I was reading a book - I am not sure which,
maybe about the Spice Islands or the Chinese mapping the world ca. 1421. An
English captain discovered the benefit of Citrus ca. 1570. Then it was
forgotten for around 200 years ! How !
--
From Glorious Gloucestershire, near Lydney, using :------------
Wendy Gray
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
My husband used to complain every time he went in that something was off/past
its sell-by date. It got so that the section managers of fresh foods vanished
when they saw him coming. Tesco, Asda etc are just as bad. However, at least
in a supermarket you can pick your own. On a market stall they put the nicest
stuff at the front and the crap at the back, then serve you the crap. Unless
you open every paper bag and check, you can be 'done' very easily. You can
get linched for daring to select your own from the front. (I refer to UK
experiences - here in Belgium everything is laid out flat and you are
expected to choose your own.)
--
Wendy Gray, expat Yorkshirewoman
Tervuren, Belgium/Belgique/Belgiė
Wendy Gray
Ben Crick <ben....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ddbc31b...@orpheusnet.co.uk>, Lionel Smith
> <lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Now I hear that a French consortium is after buying up what remains of
> > our dairy industry.
> >
> > Godamn Crapauds!
>
> Dairy Crest Ltd stoutly denied that it had received a takeover
> approach from any dairy consortium anywhere in the world. Its
> shares however remain high (buy on the rumour, sell on the news).
>
> Les crapauds demeurent dans le trou, apparément.
>
Bon Appetit!
Lionel Smith
Mr. D.H. Robinson <d....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> One aspect that I have not seen mentioned is the question of the
> impoverishment of soil due to heavy agricultural use and the subsequent
> steady removal of trace elements that have no obvious source of
> replacement.
Not mentioned so far in this thread but I do recall pointing this out
some time ago.
> Does the soil become deprived of necessary trace elements after years of
> cultivation?
Indeed it does and that is not all.
Good soil has an intricate structure with an ecosystem all of its own.
Industrial agriculture, reliant on herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer
do absolutely nothing for this structure, thus the soil becomes little
better than a blotting paper type medium to hold the chemicals to promote
whatever crop is being grown.
Indeed as the soil structure breaks down the it becomes more prone to
erosion by wind or water. Recovery can take decades of management if
possible at all.
Have a read of, 'The Great Food Gamble' by John Humphrys who, although a
journalist, is one who tends to get his facts correct. This book informs
on much more than soil, farmed salmon anybody?
Lionel Smith
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Now there's a strange thing. I was reading a book - I am not sure
> which, maybe about the Spice Islands or the Chinese mapping the world
> ca. 1421. An English captain discovered the benefit of Citrus ca. 1570.
> Then it was forgotten for around 200 years ! How !
His ship sank. ;-)
Seriously I don't know but I know a place to look which may help -
Mariner's Mirror on CD, I'll keep my eye out but I have too many books to
read and review at present, some on aircraft, one on mid-Victorian
Battleships and three on Trafalgar. Plus research for an article on 109
year old Henry Allingham an RNAS WW1 veteran.
Glorious Gloucestershire! My stomping ground in an earlier age before
Gloucester grew to big. Left there in '63 but still paid occasional
visits to stomp around the Forest of Dean, Near Hearkening Rock, Far
Hearkening Rock, Buck Stone, Suck Stone and the Kymin and Seven Sisters
to name but a few points of interest, with my grandfather and the
Cotswold Ramblers. Kept my feet in for all the hill stomping I was doing
in Scotland when not on leave.
the Glorious Glosters barracks, Robinswood, was where I first went when
interested in a naval career. The Regimental Museum was a regular haunt
after school.
Lionel Smith
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> We are also up against an ignorant, urban govt. 'cos that's where most
> people live.
Judging by many comments on the BBC web site's various Have Your Say
threads there is a great deal of ignorance in general in Greater London.
Supposed to be balanced, what a sick joke!
John Nolan
<lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <na.5fdbb44ddb.a...@orpheusmail.co.uk>,
> John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Now there's a strange thing. I was reading a book - I am not sure
> > which, maybe about the Spice Islands or the Chinese mapping the world
> > ca. 1421. An English captain discovered the benefit of Citrus ca. 1570.
> > Then it was forgotten for around 200 years ! How !
>
> His ship sank. ;-)
>
> Seriously I don't know but I know a place to look which may help -
> Mariner's Mirror on CD, I'll keep my eye out but I have too many books to
> read and review at present, some on aircraft, one on mid-Victorian
> Battleships and three on Trafalgar.
Lionel, you might be interested in this.
I am just reading a book called "Rule Britannia" given me by a friend. It
is about the RN 1793 - 1805 or so, maybe a bit later. It obviously includes
the rise of Nelson. It is by Northcote Parkinson and is a very interesting
read about a part of our history of which I know little.
Whilst I have a common interest, I also have a more personal interest.
On a shelf we have a model of HMS "Impregnable", the flagship of one of my
g.grandfathers called Bradshaw. This is an old wooden walls that looks just
like Nelson's "Victory". It was carved from the teak of HMS "Ironduke"
(Jutland) by a sailor for a great uncle who was a son of the admiral.
We worked out that Admiral Bradshaw was born about 1830 - 35, to a quite
wealthy family (maybe Cumbrian). As a small boy he could well have been
brought up on tales of naval derring do. As an admiral he would have moved
in higher nval circles. We have letters written by him to my grandmother
around 1968.
"Now Katie dear, look after Mama whilst I am away."
And he would sale away for another 2 years.
An old family story is that my grandmother, whom I knew and who was a da. of
the admiral, was kissed by an old lady who danced with Nelson before the
battle of Trafalgar. Recently, I have been trying to work out how feasible
this is.
If my grandmother was about 5 in 1868, and old lady of, say, 83 in that year
would have been about 20 in 1805. So the story is quite feasible.
I never cease to be amazed about how the change in the design of ships was
TOTAL between about 1870 and 1905 or so. And, just how short time is !
Lionel Smith
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On a shelf we have a model of HMS "Impregnable", the flagship of one of
> my g.grandfathers called Bradshaw. This is an old wooden walls that
> looks just like Nelson's "Victory". It was carved from the teak of HMS
> "Ironduke" (Jutland) by a sailor for a great uncle who was a son of the
> admiral.
> We worked out that Admiral Bradshaw was born about 1830 - 35, to a quite
> wealthy family
The earlier Impregnable having been wrecked off Chichester in 1799 this
would be the 98 gun (which does not include Caronnades) three-decker
Second Rate launched in 1810 at Chatham Dockyard. Designed by Rule she
was 197 ft on the gundeck and of 2406 tons builders measure (3880
displacement tons - used after 1873 and known as standard tonnage after
1926) based upon the number of tuns, casks of wine and a carry over from
15th century practice, that she could hold.
Having served at the bombardment of Algiers with Lord Exmouth's (Sir
Edward Pellew) squadron in 1816 she was put out to grass as a training
ship in 1862.
Which makes her unlikely to have been a flagship under an Admiral
Bradshaw borne between 1830 - 35.
> (maybe Cumbrian).
As was, of course, Cuthbert Collingwood.
> As a small boy he could well have been brought up on tales of naval
> derring do. As an admiral he would have moved in higher nval circles.
> We have letters written by him to my grandmother around 1968.
> "Now Katie dear, look after Mama whilst I am away."
Borne in 1830 - 35 and still writing letters in 1968 at the age of 133 -
138, surely something amiss here unless I have mis-understood something.
A number of vessels served as training ships by the name Impregnable.
Indeed this was in the nature of things as over time numerous vessels
joined and left groups of hulks reserved for training. The establishments
of Excellent (gunnery), Vernon (Torpedos), Tenedos - Indus - Fisgard
(artisan and artificer training) are examples.
The 110 gun steam wooden line-of-battle ship Howe (the last of her kind)
became a training ship in 1885 being renamed Impregnable in 1886.
The 1868 built steam frigate Inconstant (5880 tons) became Impregnable
between 1906 and 1922. Inconstant was the fastest ship afloat in her day
and of a type that deserved better than being broken up in 1956.
Black Prince of 1861 and 9210 tons (sister ship of the preserved Warrior)
came under the umbrella of Impregnable in 1910.
Other vessels over time were Circe an 1827 46 gun 5th Rate (large
frigate), Powerful an 1895 1st Class cruiser, Andromeda and 1897 1st
Class cruiser, Caroline an 1882 Composite (iron/steel frames and timber
hull) corvette and Ganges.
Ganges was an 84 gun Second Rate built in Bombay (and thus largely of
Teak) in 1821. Ganges before becoming Impregnable III in 1922 had been
Tenedos III (1906) and Indus V (1910). When broken up in 1929 many of the
timbers from Ganges were used for framing of the Drift Bridge Hotel on
the Reigate Road near Epsom where many of us stayed and others met up
over the weekend of the 1999 Epsom RISC OS Show.
> And he would sale away for another 2 years.
Clearly not on the Impregnable.
> An old family story is that my grandmother, whom I knew and who was a
> da. of the admiral, was kissed by an old lady who danced with Nelson
> before the battle of Trafalgar. Recently, I have been trying to work
> out how feasible this is.
Nelson had very little time for such a thing during his last stay in
England in the Summer of 1805. I am not saying that the story is untrue
though.
> If my grandmother was about 5 in 1868, and old lady of, say, 83 in that
> year would have been about 20 in 1805. So the story is quite feasible.
Indeed.
I once dated one of Horatio's direct descendants and one of my ancestors
was on the Victory at Trafalgar (but many could claim that latter I would
think).
> I never cease to be amazed about how the change in the design of ships
> was TOTAL between about 1870 and 1905 or so. And, just how short time
> is !
The years of 1870-1885 are often thought of as the years of uncertainty.
This from the need for long trade routes, and colonies, to be protected
at a time of rapid technological change. Early steam engines were not
efficient, consumed much cole and thus were short legged and unsuited to
support in distant waters. Gun power was also increasing rapidly with the
concomitant need for ever increasing thickness of armour and much soul
searching on suitably positioning heavy armament and yet cater for a full
sailing rig. The loss of HMS Captain being one result, although there
were a number of complex factors involved here, of the insoluble problems
presented.
As coaling stations, and communications, were set up overseas and with
the development of the compound and then triple-expansion engines (both
requiring increases to boiler working pressure and hence bound by the
limits of concurrent technological knowledge) then range of operation
became less of a limiting factor and sailing rig could be utterly
dispensed with thus the cruiser continued to evolve but without sails.
Many historians in the past have castigated the Adiralty et. al. for
being reactionary, resisting change, when in fact they were working
within the constraints of their day.
One more example is that vessels for distant, often tropical, waters
continued with wooden hulls (if of iron or steel frame) for many years
after iron and then steel were general elsewhere in the fleet. The
reasons behind this were that copper clad wood was more resistant to
marine growth (fouling) and repair facilities, and materials, were easier
to come by overseas during the period.
The evolution from the wooden walls of Nelson to the grey brutes of the
1914 - 1918 war is, as you indicate, a fascinating subject. A subject
that I was prepared by training to have an insight into.
In 1963 artificer apprentices were still taught the basics of metal work,
cutting with a hammer and chisel and then filing to shape and size using
engineers square, rile and calipers before moving on to sophisticated
stuff involving hacksaws and micrometers. Welding, brazing, tin-plating,
box making, pipe work, casting turning as well as many exercises in
fitting were also a part. I managed to score highly enough with some of
those fitting (and drilling) jobs to have been in the displayed 'Over 80
Club' and I still have some of those pieces to this day. Along with the
0-1 inch micrometer that I saved up my spare pennies for (after laundry
bills, doughby gear and a Post Office Savings Allotnent etc), over about
12 weeks, to pay the then princely sum of Ł5 12 shillings and 6 pence.
At the same time we were doing Ten Tors on the moors (1962-3 was one of
the coldest winters on record, and didn't we know it), learning drill,
rifle shooting, rowing whalers and cutters up and down the Hamoaze and
all the numerous other things to fit us for a place in the RN. Aircraft
training came later at Arbroath where quite a bit of time was spent out
in the highlands from Glen Nevis through Glen Coe and the Cairngorms to
the Grampians.
The RN Artificer is no more replaced by the technician who changes boxes,
more core skills lost to society when these folk leave the service.
Lionel Smith
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On a shelf we have a model of HMS "Impregnable", the flagship of one of
> my g.grandfathers called Bradshaw. This is an old wooden walls that
> looks just like Nelson's "Victory". It was carved from the teak of HMS
> "Ironduke" (Jutland) by a sailor for a great uncle who was a son of the
> admiral.
My earlier reply seems to have gone 'walk-about', so here goes again.
After the loss of the previous 98 gun Second Rate Impregnable near
Chichester in 1799 the next Impregnable, also a 98 gun, three-decker, 197
feet on the gundeck, of 2406 tons builders measure [1] Second Rate was
launched in 1810 after being ordered in 1798.
This Impregnable formed a part of Lord Exmouth's (Sir Edward Pellew)
squadron which bombarded Algiers in 1816. She was relegated to a training
ship in 1862 being renamed Kent in 1888 and Caledonia in 1891 before sale
in 1906.
It was during this period that Impregnable became a generic name for the
changing cluster of hulks which formed a training establishment for boys.
This use of hulks, with various vessels being added and subtracted and or
forming parts of other training establishments was a common practice.
Other examples of this are, Excellent (gunnery), Vernon (torpedos),
Tenedos - Indus - Fisgard (artisans and artificers).
Thus during the latter half of the 19th century the following vessels
became a part of Impregnable over time:
Howe, a 110 gun three decker screw line-of-battle ship, built in 1860 and
the last of her kind to be built, which became Bulwark in 1885 and
Impregnable in 1886 and then Bulwark again in 1919 before sale and
breaking up in 1921. Thus she outlasted her successor (Howe) an 1885
steel battleship of the Admiral Class broken up in 1812. She also
outlasted another pre-dreadnought battleship Bulwark which was destroyed
by internal explosion early in WW1.
Inconstant, a large, 5880 tons (displacement), iron screw frigate, the
fastest ship in the world at her launch, built at Pembroke Dock in 1868
and which became Impregnable II in 1906, Defiance IV in 1922, Defiance II
in 1930 and sadly broken up in 1956. She could have been a excellent
preserved example of her type.
Black Prince, the 9210 tons armoured frigate of 1861, sister-ship to the
preserved Warrior which became a training ship in 1899, renamed Emerald
in 1904, Impregnable III in 1910 and sold in 1923.
Circe, a 5th Rate 46 gun large frigate built in 1827 which became
Impregnable IV in 1916 and sold in 1922.
Powerful, a 1st Class cruiser of 14200 tons built in 1895 (this class of
ships were more impressive than useful, being larger than contemporary
battleships, being built to counter proposed Russian vessels which did
not materialise in the form anticipated) which became Impregnable in 1919
and sold in 1929.
Andromeda, an 11000 ton 1st Class cruiser built in 1897 and which became
training ship Powerful II in 1913, Impregnable II in 1919, Defiance 1931
and sold in 1956.
Caroline, a composite (iron or steel frame with timber hull planking)
screw corvette built in 1882. She became Ganges in 1908, Powerful III in
1913 and Impregnable IV in 1919 before being sold in 1929.
Ganges, an 84 gun two-decker of 2284 tons builders measure, built in
Bombay (largely of teak) and launched in 1821. She became a training ship
in 1865, renamed Tenedos III in 1906, Indus V in 1910, Impregnable III in
1922. She was broken up in 1929 with her timbers being used for
construction in The Drift Bridge Hotel on the Reigate Road near Epsom
where some of us stayed, and others met up, over the weekend of the 1999
RISC OS Show at Epsom Racecourse.
> We worked out that Admiral Bradshaw was born about 1830 - 35, to a quite
> wealthy family
Right.
> (maybe Cumbrian)
As was Cuthbert Collingwood.
> . As a small boy he could well have been brought up on tales of naval
> derring do. As an admiral he would have moved in higher nval circles.
> We have letters written by him to my grandmother around 1968.
> "Now Katie dear, look after Mama whilst I am away."
This is curious. Writing letters in 1968 would have made him 133 - 138
years old.
> And he would sale away for another 2 years.
Clearly not on Impregnable, unless of course this refers to his service
before he made Admiral.
> An old family story is that my grandmother, whom I knew and who was a
> da. of the admiral, was kissed by an old lady who danced with Nelson
> before the battle of Trafalgar. Recently, I have been trying to work
> out how feasible this is.
Not impossible although Nelson had very little time for such things
during his brief stay in England in the summer of 1805.
> If my grandmother was about 5 in 1868, and old lady of, say, 83 in that
> year would have been about 20 in 1805. So the story is quite feasible.
I wouldn't like to dispute it.
> I never cease to be amazed about how the change in the design of ships
> was TOTAL between about 1870 and 1905 or so. And, just how short time
> is !
The evolution of battleship from wooden walls to the grey hulks of the
1914-18 war is, as you point out, fascinating. Certainly what some dub
the 'period of uncertainty' of 1870 - 1880, and the so called 'freaks'
that resulted is one of the more interesting periods. Too many historians
have dismissed the Admiralty et. al. of the time as being reactionary and
unwilling to take up new technology. This is demonstrably unfair as much
so called technological advance was theoretical rather than practical.
This was a period where the battle between sail and steam reached a head,
as did the controversies of breach-loading verses muzzle loading ordnance
and of iron and steel versus timber hulls. The fact that the Royal Navy
had a strategic role, as well as one of defence in home waters made many
of these issues difficult to resolve and in the case of long range steam
cruisers with turret or barbette mounted armament and a full sailing rig
introduced mutually exclusive requirements.
Timber hulls were also preferable for trade cruisers in that timber
hulls, with copper cladding, did not foul so easily and timber for
repairs was more readily available in far flung outposts.
Only as technology advanced allowing higher pressure boilers could
efficient steam plant based on compound, or triple-expansion, princples
could sailing rig be eliminated and safety of our overseas trade ensured.
The necessary defended coaling stations also required time to set up
along with the commensurate communications networks.
[1] based on the capacity in tuns - casks of wine - in use since the 15th
century, 3880 tons displacement (as from 1873 but standard displacement
from 1926).
I hope that is illuminating.
Alan Gustard
>
>> (maybe Cumbrian).
>
> As was, of course, Cuthbert Collingwood.
Born in Newcastle upon Tyne on 26th September 1750(?)
Educated at the Royal Grammar School, Jesmond.
Joined the Navy aged 11 serving on the frigate Shannon
He owned a house in Morpeth, Northumberland which he visited twice
during his life.
Died on voyage to the UK to which he was returning due to ill health,
and was given a hero's burial in St Paul's Cathedral.
Commemorated by a memorial statue at the mouth of the river Tyne at
Tynemouth.
Alan
--
Alan Gustard
Cramlington
Northumberland
Lionel Smith
Alan Gustard <al...@riscos.org> wrote:
> >
> >> (maybe Cumbrian).
> >
> > As was, of course, Cuthbert Collingwood.
> Ummm.
Heh! Heh! There is somebody awake in this thread so I am no longer on my
own. ;-)
John Nolan
<lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > As a small boy he could well have been brought up on tales of naval
> > derring do. As an admiral he would have moved in higher nval circles.
> > We have letters written by him to my grandmother around 1968.
> > "Now Katie dear, look after Mama whilst I am away."
>
> Borne in 1830 - 35 and still writing letters in 1968 at the age of 133 -
> 138, surely something amiss here unless I have mis-understood something.
Sorry, typo, 1968 should of course be 1868, which is correct in the context.
I have just counted the guns on "our" HMS Impregnable. They are 84, + or - a
few, as some are missing, and I don't know enough about the detail.
Lionel also commented,
This Impregnable formed a part of Lord Exmouth's (Sir Edward Pellew)
squadron which bombarded Algiers in 1816.
Well, I did a search for Admiral Bradshaw on google.
Interestingly, enough the name Exmouth came up with Bradshaw apparently in
the family tree.
I haven't yet had time to invetigate further.
Wendy Gray
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4de0f3bc...@orpheusnet.co.uk>, Lionel Smith
> <lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > As a small boy he could well have been brought up on tales of naval
> > > derring do. As an admiral he would have moved in higher nval circles.
> > > We have letters written by him to my grandmother around 1968.
> > > "Now Katie dear, look after Mama whilst I am away."
> >
> > Borne in 1830 - 35 and still writing letters in 1968 at the age of 133 -
> > 138, surely something amiss here unless I have mis-understood something.
>
> Sorry, typo, 1968 should of course be 1868, which is correct in the
> context.
I just feel sorry for his mother - 5 years in labour! :-)
--
Wendy Gray, expat Yorkshirewoman
Tervuren .be
Lionel Smith
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Sorry, typo, 1968 should of course be 1868, which is correct in the
> context.
Well, having met one Henry Allingham a 109 year old RNAS veteran of WW1 I
couldn't be sure which 1**8 it was.
> I have just counted the guns on "our" HMS Impregnable. They are 84, +
> or - a few, as some are missing, and I don't know enough about the
> detail.
Ignore carronades, if fitted, as they do not count.
I don't have any positive information on the ship's identity as yet
although in the years after the war, after 1815, a number of ships were
modified to the designs of Robert Seppings. Now 84 gun 2-deckers were
also produced and some three deckers reduced to 84 and some becoming
'razees', i.e. cut down by one deck. Thus a three decker would become a
two deck and a two decker a single. Amongst the latter was the earlier
Indefatigable razeed from a 64 gun two-decker (of the Ardent Class as was
Nelson's favourite Agamemnon) to a 44 gun and classed as a frigate. This
Idefatigable was the vessel in which Sir Edward Pellew achieved much
renown.
Now I have a hunch, from inference, that your Impregnable is as modified
by Seppings. Does she have a stern structure reminiscent of Victory,
typical of that age, or is it much rounded (on the gun decks this is as
well as between wind and water) or perhaps composed of a series of convex
and concave curves making wider arcs of fire available at the stern?
> Interestingly, enough the name Exmouth came up with Bradshaw apparently
> in the family tree.
Would such Exmouth references be due to location or a family name? The
Pellews were a West Country based family, Cornish IIRC.
John Nolan
<lio...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Ignore carronades, if fitted, as they do not count.
>
> I don't have any positive information on the ship's identity as yet
> although in the years after the war, after 1815, a number of ships were
> modified to the designs of Robert Seppings. Now 84 gun 2-deckers were
> also produced and some three deckers reduced to 84 and some becoming
> 'razees', i.e. cut down by one deck. Thus a three decker would become a
> two deck and a two decker a single. Amongst the latter was the earlier
> Indefatigable razeed from a 64 gun two-decker (of the Ardent Class as was
> Nelson's favourite Agamemnon) to a 44 gun and classed as a frigate. This
> Idefatigable was the vessel in which Sir Edward Pellew achieved much
> renown.
>
> Now I have a hunch, from inference, that your Impregnable is as modified
> by Seppings. Does she have a stern structure reminiscent of Victory,
> typical of that age, or is it much rounded (on the gun decks this is as
> well as between wind and water) or perhaps composed of a series of convex
> and concave curves making wider arcs of fire available at the stern?
>
Fighting Sail". Cassell Caravel Books - no. ISBN no. date about 1963
Author Oliver Warner in consultation with Admiral Nimitz, USN
Are you ever down this way ? If you are interested, and can't get hold of a
copy of this book, you could look at it. I hesitate to send it to you,
because I have local friends who are also intersted in all things Nelsonian
and who haven't seen it yet.
From picture of the Victory in this book, "my" Impregnable is smaller.
There are 3 gun decks, the uppermost being the open deck.
At the stern, the rudder post disappears into an overhanging, plain rounded
part with "Impregnable" on it. Below this overhang are 2 guns facing astern.
Above, a single row (deck ?) of windows. Below the windows is what looks
like a balustrade. Here, there is an interesting difference between "my"
Impregnable and Victory. ( wind/bal = windows/balustrade etc.)
Working up,
On the Victory - rudder post and 2 guns, wind/bal/wind/bal/wind
On the Impregnable - rudder post and 2 guns, bal/wind
On the Victory, the windows seem staraight across the stern, with some at
each side. On the Impregnable, the stern windows are on a very slight curve
and there are no side windows.
>
> > Interestingly, enough the name Exmouth came up with Bradshaw apparently
> > in the family tree.
>
> Would such Exmouth references be due to location or a family name? The
> Pellews were a West Country based family, Cornish IIRC.
I found the above at
www.pellew.com/Reference/Reference%20008.htm
It seems that those Bradshaws were West Country.
Lionel Smith
John Nolan <john....@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I have in front of me the model and also a book, "Nelson, and the Age of
> Fighting Sail". Cassell Caravel Books - no. ISBN no. date about 1963
> Author Oliver Warner in consultation with Admiral Nimitz, SUN
Oliver Warner was an acknowledged Nelson expert and biographer of repute.
> Are you ever down this way ? If you are interested, and can't get hold
> of a copy of this book, you could look at it. I hesitate to send it to
> you, because I have local friends who are also intersted in all things
> Nelsonian and who haven't seen it yet.
I don't have a copy of this book but will keep an eye out.
Unfortunately as I cannot, through health issues, drive my ability to
visit libraries is limited and Hampshire seem to have brought together a
maritime collection (multiple copies of each book in one location) in
Gosport to which access by bus is a 'ten day camel ride' and many of the
books are reference only and those I can order via the web site and
transferred to Fareham costs 50p a time. I certainly hope they do not
have a major fire there.
> From picture of the Victory in this book, "my" Impregnable is smaller.
> There are 3 gun decks, the uppermost being the open deck.
OK What I think we have here is Impregnable in later form after being cut
down from a three decker 98 gun Second Rate to a two decker 84 gun third
rate. Also she was probably lengthened at rebuild using the Seppings form
of reconstruction with diagonal timbers for bracing. The upper, open,
deck does not count as a proper gun deck in the system. Thus Victory is a
true three decker with three enclosed gun decks.
> At the stern,
> the rudder post disappears into an overhanging, plain rounded part with
> "Impregnable" on it. Below this overhang are 2 guns facing astern.
> Above, a single row (deck ?) of windows. Below the windows is what
> looks like a balustrade. Here, there is an interesting difference
> between "my" Impregnable and Victory. ( wind/bal = windows/balustrade
> etc.) Working up, On the Victory - rudder post and 2 guns,
> wind/bal/wind/bal/wind On the Impregnable - rudder post and 2 guns,
> bal/wind
> On the Victory, the windows seem staraight across the stern, with some
> at each side. On the Impregnable, the stern windows are on a very
> slight curve and there are no side windows.
It would appear that Impregnable was not, at least at the stage the model
was made (What is the history of the model?), given the full rounded
(looking down) stern after the fashion of the already round bow in full
Seppings fashion.