David Seymour - who? - finds a cause

Forums › Politics › David Seymour - who? - finds a cause

Rikkitic

Glurp
9499 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4501

Subscriber

Topic # 242543 2-Nov-2018 17:34

David Seymour has finally found a cause to grab the headlines and remind people that ACT really does have a purpose.

According to an item on RNZ, Seymour has learned that banning plastic bags may kill up to 20 New Zealanders a year due to food poisoning! He bases this on a rough calculation of chicken-eating San Franciscans who reputedly did themselves in from contaminated reusable bags.

In the brave spirit of such ACT traditions as condoning incest and possibly the Conservative one of believing in chemtrails, Seymour suggests that single use plastic bags are not a pollution problem in this country at all. Rather, it is the fault of all those careless Africans and Asians and banning bags here simply cannot be justified due to the health consequences.

He does not say what the health consequences are of people putting those bags over their heads. Perhaps he would like to investigate that risk as well, just to see if it justifies the level of inconvenience and potential public health danger that might arise from allowing the continued presence of such bags on the streets and in the trees and in the oceans and practically everywhere else the wind blows.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

MikeB4

13839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6594

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2118708 2-Nov-2018 18:33

He is irrelevant

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

Dingbatt

3722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 770

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2118792 2-Nov-2018 22:09

One person supports this post

End Of Life Choice Bill 2017. Sponsor David Seymour.
Are you suggesting this piece of proposed legislation is irrelevant or unworthy?
Or is this thread just more left wing Shillery.

Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

MikeB4

13839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6594

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2118794 2-Nov-2018 22:15

This is 2018, he is a lame duck politician from a lame duck party. He is desperately trying to be relevant. I have stated many times that I am a National vote so swing and a miss with the left wing jab.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

Rikkitic

Glurp
9499 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4501

Subscriber

Reply # 2118800 2-Nov-2018 23:08

I applaud the End of Life Choice Bill but this would have happened anyway.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

quickymart

4275 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 950

Reply # 2118817 3-Nov-2018 05:30

I don't know how Act are still around - I don't know anyone who votes for them. If not for that Epsom deal with National they'd be gone.

Dingbatt

3722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 770

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2118848 3-Nov-2018 08:26

MikeB4:
....... I have stated many times that I am a National vote so swing and a miss with the left wing jab.

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about"- Oscar Wilde

The left wing comment wasn't aimed at you, so not even at bat I'm afraid.

For those people who have watched a loved one linger and suffer from a terminal illness, waiting for a Bill to "happen anyway" has been a long time coming.

Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

Rikkitic

Glurp
9499 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4501

Subscriber

Reply # 2118853 3-Nov-2018 08:52

It should have happened a lot sooner and it would have if (National) MPs hadn't have kept voting it down.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

JimmyH

2613 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1285

Reply # 2119258 3-Nov-2018 19:30

Rikkitic:

David Seymour has finally found a cause to grab the headlines and remind people that ACT really does have a purpose.

According to an item on RNZ, Seymour has learned that banning plastic bags may kill up to 20 New Zealanders a year due to food poisoning! He bases this on a rough calculation of chicken-eating San Franciscans who reputedly did themselves in from contaminated reusable bags.

In the brave spirit of such ACT traditions as condoning incest and possibly the Conservative one of believing in chemtrails, Seymour suggests that single use plastic bags are not a pollution problem in this country at all. Rather, it is the fault of all those careless Africans and Asians and banning bags here simply cannot be justified due to the health consequences.

He does not say what the health consequences are of people putting those bags over their heads. Perhaps he would like to investigate that risk as well, just to see if it justifies the level of inconvenience and potential public health danger that might arise from allowing the continued presence of such bags on the streets and in the trees and in the oceans and practically everywhere else the wind blows.

Abstracting from the fact that you clearly have a deep dislike of David Seymour, I'm more interested in whether or not he has a bona fide point here?

Is the evidence to support a claim that putting meat etc into reusable instead of single use shopping bags, particularly when they aren't washed after each use, leads to more contamination and food poisoning robust? On the face of it is sounds plausible. Presumably the Government took expert advice on this as part of its decision, and I am quite interested in knowing what that advice was.

If there is evidence of a likely statistically significant lift in serious food poisoning then it's a justified concern, and Seymour is raising legitimate issues that need to be addressed. If he isn't, and is making stuff up based on bad or no science to score political points, then he deserves ridicule. And I would like to know which it is.

And, for what it's worth, I think that trying to link to somehow this question to incest and chemtrails is a bit of an unwarranted cheap shot, to try and dismiss the question by inferences painting him as a loon and avoid addressing it at all.

Rikkitic

Glurp
9499 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4501

Subscriber

Reply # 2119259 3-Nov-2018 19:44

On the news this evening, I think Prime or TV1, was an item on this very subject that basically said his idea was silly and talked to some experts about why it was silly. I don't have time at this moment but will look it up and post details here.

Satire is a legitimate tool for deflating those in public office who say silly things. Obviously my remarks were satirical.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

Rikkitic

Glurp
9499 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4501

Subscriber

Reply # 2119276 3-Nov-2018 21:03

Here is a more balanced assessment from TV1 news. I also checked the San Francisco research. As is often the case with this kind of thing, there is some theoretical basis for Seymour's claim, but the 'evidence' he cites does not stand up to scrutiny. Like Judith Collins, he seems to be reacting to a catchy headline without bothering to actually check its validity.

There is no proof that any increased food poisoning deaths have occurred in San Francisco or anywhere else as a result of a plastic bag ban. No credible research has been done on this. The connection made by Seymour and others simply has not been established. At the same time, it is not inconceivable that contamination could occur and it is not a bad idea to wipe or wash reusable bags from time to time. But Seymour is making a mountain out of a pile of mashed potatoes and blowing smoke out his backside. He will need to come up with something better than this if he wants to escape obscurity.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

Paul1977

2583 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 746

Reply # 2120057 5-Nov-2018 11:11

His claims are probably silly, but the whole push against so-called "single use" plastic bags is little more than a publicity stunt to look like something is being done.

I don't know anybody who just throws a "single-use" plastic bag away once they's used it (with the exception of ones with raw meat), people re-use them.

Nearly everything else we buy is wrapped in much thicker and heavier plastic than the "single-use" bags.

We were shopping in Countdown and had forgotten our reusable bags. Countdown's solution to this is to, for 15c, sell you a thick heavy plastic bag - much thicker and heavier than the "single-use" bags that are meant to be so terrible.

The bin-liner companies must be rubbing their hands together as well.

The amount of plastic being used is certainly a problem, but targeting (almost exclusively) "single-use" plastic bags simply because it is easy is not a solution to anything.

mattwnz

14663 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1968

Reply # 2120984 6-Nov-2018 17:07

One person supports this post

Paul1977:

We were shopping in Countdown and had forgotten our reusable bags. Countdown's solution to this is to, for 15c, sell you a thick heavy plastic bag - much thicker and heavier than the "single-use" bags that are meant to be so terrible.

I think it is ironic that they seem to justify charging, because they are thicker single use bags. But isn't being thicker actually worse for the environment, as it has more plastic in it? Single use plastic bags are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of waste. Almost all packaging has plastic, and even cardboard is often coated with a plastic glaze. I think if there was regulation so that companies that sold products had to take back that packaging for recycling, companies would change pretty quickly, and we would get some innovative new packaging technologies introduced here.

Paul1977

2583 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 746

Reply # 2122094 8-Nov-2018 11:42

mattwnz:

Paul1977:

We were shopping in Countdown and had forgotten our reusable bags. Countdown's solution to this is to, for 15c, sell you a thick heavy plastic bag - much thicker and heavier than the "single-use" bags that are meant to be so terrible.

I think it is ironic that they seem to justify charging, because they are thicker single use bags. But isn't being thicker actually worse for the environment, as it has more plastic in it? Single use plastic bags are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of waste. Almost all packaging has plastic, and even cardboard is often coated with a plastic glaze. I think if there was regulation so that companies that sold products had to take back that packaging for recycling, companies would change pretty quickly, and we would get some innovative new packaging technologies introduced here.

They justify it by calling the reusable plastic bags.