Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:25 am

So you didn't go to the links i provided or the page i provided and read the expert and peer review studies then... No surprise there then

They all say the same thing

i would like to see 1 peer review opinion that supports your view
You keep failing to supply that and I have asked a few times now why is that ??

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:25 am

The largest study to observe the effects of a barrier, published in the British Medical Journal in 2010, showed that after a barrier went up at the Bloor Street Viaduct, the rate of jumping from other bridges in Toronto increased and there was no decrease in the overall jumping rate, although there was a decrease in the overall suicide rate in Toronto. The study also mentions that suicide barriers may not be effective if there are comparable jumping points nearby or if the structure is not a strong suicide magnet.

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884?tab=responses

So now you can stop making feeble excuses

answer the points:

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:28 am

Didge wrote:The largest study to observe the effects of a barrier, published in the British Medical Journal in 2010,[5] showed that after a barrier went up at the Bloor Street Viaduct, the rate of jumping from other bridges in Toronto increased and there was no decrease in the overall jumping rate, although there was a decrease in the overall suicide rate in Toronto. The study also mentions that suicide barriers may not be effective if there are comparable jumping points nearby or if the structure is not a strong suicide magnet.

so back to the bridge then ?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:29 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:The largest study to observe the effects of a barrier, published in the British Medical Journal in 2010,[5] showed that after a barrier went up at the Bloor Street Viaduct, the rate of jumping from other bridges in Toronto increased and there was no decrease in the overall jumping rate, although there was a decrease in the overall suicide rate in Toronto. The study also mentions that suicide barriers may not be effective if there are comparable jumping points nearby or if the structure is not a strong suicide magnet.
so back to the bridge then ?

Hilarious, stop making excuses, read for yourself and then answer my points

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c2884?tab=responses

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:30 am

So clearly you have not the first clue what you are talking about and just go off what some people say.

Exposed as a fraud

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:33 am

British Medical Journal study: Bloor Street Viaduct barrier not lowering Toronto’s suicide rate

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

So stop being a weasel and counter my points:

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:37 am

Suicide barriers on bridges might not reduce overall suicide rates by jumping from heights, as people may change location for their suicide attempt, according to a new study published online in the British Medical Journal.

However, there was no impact on suicide by jumping in the region as a whole. Toronto's overall yearly suicide rate by jumping was almost unchanged when comparing the pre and post barrier periods at 56.4 per year compared to 56.6 per year.
It was also noted that, post-barrier in Toronto, there was a statistically significant increase in suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct (8.7 suicide rate per year rising to 14.2 per year

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100706204707.htm

Would you like anymore links, or are you going to bore me to death with your excuses:

Try again:

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:40 am

Hey ho, seems my views are actually based on facts, so what have you got Korben?

Some names?

Score buddy, ha ha

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:43 am

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:44 am

Didge wrote:So clearly you have not the first clue what you are talking about and just go off what some people say.

Exposed as a fraud

i go of what the experts and are saying which is at odds with your opinion and thats all it is
They cite a link you dispute that link, but provide no evidence to support that opinion
and all i know is what i have read
As was claimed originaly the suicide rate fell in the 60s to 70s and experts cite the move to detoxified gas as in at least part the reason
you have given nothing but opinion on that subject and have presented no facts to support your opinion that the experts are wrong

I am afraid you're the one who is failing to support your premise

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:48 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:So clearly you have not the first clue what you are talking about and just go off what some people say.

Exposed as a fraud
i go of what the experts and are saying which is at odds with your opinion and thats all it is
Well as seen the "your" experts are wrong
They cite a link you dispute that link, but provide no evidence to support that opinion
and all i know is what i have read
I have given more than one link showing you are just bullshitting now, please stop trying to pull the wool over the forum eyes you know what you are talking about
As was claimed originaly the suicide rate fell in the 60s to 70s and experts cite the move to detoxified gas as in at least part the reason
you have given nothing but opinion on that subject and have presented no facts to support your opinion that the experts are wrong
Yes the suicide rate fell, but did it have any connection to the gas claim?
Where is the evidence?
There is none, just a poor assumption that does not rule out any other factors showing you have not even read them

I am afraid you're the one who is failing to support your premise

Hilarious, I have proven that claims made are based upon assumptions not methodology, they are trying to assume a link.

So again stop giveing me pathetic excuses actually counter my points:

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:50 am

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:13 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
a fraud .....? Using peer reviewed opinions and studies is fraudulent?? well bugger me
i go of what the experts and are saying which is at odds with your opinion and thats all it is
Well as seen the "your" experts are wrongseen where you have yet to prove anything so far its all just your opinion on expert published facts
They cite a link you dispute that link, but provide no evidence to support that opinion
and all i know is what i have read
I have given more than one link showing you are just bullshitting now, please stop trying to pull the wool over the forum eyes you know what you are talking about
As was claimed originaly the suicide rate fell in the 60s to 70s and experts cite the move to detoxified gas as in at least part the reason
you have given nothing but opinion on that subject and have presented no facts to support your opinion that the experts are wrong
Yes the suicide rate fell, but did it have any connection to the gas claim? prove that with facts not just more flim flam
Where is the evidence?yyou cut out the list remember of the peerd reviewed studys (thats why you shouln`t edit others posts )
There is none, just a poor assumption that does not rule out any other factors showing you have not even read them

I am afraid you're the one who is failing to support your premise

Hilarious, I have proven that claims made are based upon assumptions not methodology, they are trying to assume a link.

No you really havent you have claimed this but haven't proved any this all you say is your right and the experts are wrong
So again stop giveing me pathetic excuses actually counter my points:

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

And all bold really.......in through the nose didge out through the mouth ...with me innnnnnnnn ....and out feeling better

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:13 am

Didge wrote:

your delusional as well
Well, I did suspect that

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:24 am

Clearly as seen Korben is not very bright, assumptions have been made off gas being a cause for a decline in suicide attempts with no sound evidence, when we have evidence we actually see that such measures on methods have no affect on suicide attempts as seen by the evidence which shows no evidence that such measures reduce suicide attempts on safety nets.

Clearly we see that doing this in San Francisco, will prevent accidents but do nothing to stop people committing suicide, which of course sadly time will prove.

As seen he cannot refute any of my points and keeps repeating himself over and over again, poorly averting my points, when he claims some experts states argue otherwise, who themselves base off assumptions on Gas in Britain and drugs in Australia, with not actually proving this link, just assuming because levels have fallen they presume they are connected.

This leads to my point you will need to see so much corroborating evidence to back such a claim which as seen the coward cannot even respond to my points and instead poorly deflects because as seen, does not have the first clue what he is talking about.

I am happy for him to counter my points, but after asking over a dozen times, it is clear his intention is to divert and avoid.

Though happy to give him another chance to redeem himself.

As seen his last replies were not only pathetic, but shows he knows very little

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:27 am

And as it says in one of your links

This was, for example, shown when Britain converted from coal gas to carbon monoxide-free natural gas in the late 1950s. Suicide rates between 1960-71 fell overall as a result(the original premis LD pointed out ) but stayed down only among the elderly demographic group (where the time-honoured mode of suicide was putting one's head in the gas oven)

So Again, this speaks to access to method of suicide

We do not really understand what makes a particular place or method the chosen instrument of suicide for sufferers, but certainly accessibility is one factor

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:31 am

Didge wrote:Clearly as seen Korben is not very bright, assumptions have been made off gas being a cause for a decline in suicide attempts with no sound evidence, when we have evidence we actually see that such measures on methods have no affect on suicide attempts as seen by the evidence which shows no evidence that such measures reduce suicide attempts on safety nets.

Clearly we see that doing this in San Francisco, will prevent accidents but do nothing to stop people committing suicide, which of course sadly time will prove.

As seen he cannot refute any of my points and keeps repeating himself over and over again, poorly averting my points, when he claims some experts states argue otherwise, who themselves base off assumptions on Gas in Britain and drugs in Australia, with not actually proving this link, just assuming because levels have fallen they presume they are connected.

This leads to my point you will need to see so much corroborating evidence to back such a claim which as seen the coward cannot even respond to my points and instead poorly deflects because as seen, does not have the first clue what he is talking about.

I am happy for him to counter my points, but after asking over a dozen times, it is clear his intention is to divert and avoid.

Though happy to give him another chance to redeem himself.

As seen his last replies were not only pathetic, but shows he knows very little

Insults again ....how very typical loosing a debate resort to insults ........you don`t see me doing that but then i knoww how to debate with out all that ...unpleasantness that is becoming your raison d'etre

poor didge very poor silent

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:31 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:And as it says in one of your links

This was, for example, shown when Britain converted from coal gas to carbon monoxide-free natural gas in the late 1950s. Suicide rates between 1960-71 fell overall as a result(the original premis LD pointed out ) but stayed down only among the elderly demographic group (where the time-honoured mode of suicide was putting one's head in the gas oven)

So Again, this speaks to access to method of suicide

We do not really understand what makes a particular place or method the chosen instrument of suicide for sufferers, but certainly accessibility is one factor

No all that shows is that through that time suicide rates fell, it does not show evidence for the link it was because of gas changes in appliances, they assume it was. Hence why I have repeatedly asked you to show me where they have discounted all other factors, so tell me have they?

Do you not understand the difference.

My evidence shows such measure clearly had no affect with nets, his evidence is based on a hunch, based again off another hunch in Australia, where levels dropped where access was limited to two methods, which does not prove they were the cause, it only shows they might have contributed, but not that they have

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:34 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:Clearly as seen Korben is not very bright, assumptions have been made off gas being a cause for a decline in suicide attempts with no sound evidence, when we have evidence we actually see that such measures on methods have no affect on suicide attempts as seen by the evidence which shows no evidence that such measures reduce suicide attempts on safety nets.

Clearly we see that doing this in San Francisco, will prevent accidents but do nothing to stop people committing suicide, which of course sadly time will prove.

As seen he cannot refute any of my points and keeps repeating himself over and over again, poorly averting my points, when he claims some experts states argue otherwise, who themselves base off assumptions on Gas in Britain and drugs in Australia, with not actually proving this link, just assuming because levels have fallen they presume they are connected.

This leads to my point you will need to see so much corroborating evidence to back such a claim which as seen the coward cannot even respond to my points and instead poorly deflects because as seen, does not have the first clue what he is talking about.

I am happy for him to counter my points, but after asking over a dozen times, it is clear his intention is to divert and avoid.

Though happy to give him another chance to redeem himself.

As seen his last replies were not only pathetic, but shows he knows very little
Insults again ....how very typical loosing a debate resort to insults ........you don`t see me doing that but then i knoww how to debate with out all that ...unpleasantness that is becoming your raison d'etre

poor didge very poor

You are the one losing son, because as seen you cannot counter any of my points and will be happy to insult what I see as an ignorant idiot!

You maybe clever with IT, but that is it!

With many things you are very much dim!

So stop making excuses and counter my points, as you have made two pages full of excuses so far.
You see some of us know how poor you are with your treatment of Me Lord, thus you are not worthy of any respect, when you posted so many lies stating he had no brother, which really makes you such a worm

So stop giving me bullshit and answer my points, which you have failed to do

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:36 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:And as it says in one of your links

This was, for example, shown when Britain converted from coal gas to carbon monoxide-free natural gas in the late 1950s. Suicide rates between 1960-71 fell overall as a result(the original premis LD pointed out ) but stayed down only among the elderly demographic group (where the time-honoured mode of suicide was putting one's head in the gas oven)

So Again, this speaks to access to method of suicide

We do not really understand what makes a particular place or method the chosen instrument of suicide for sufferers, but certainly accessibility is one factor

No all that shows is that through that time suicide rates fell, it does not show evidence for the link it was because of gas changes in appliances, they assume it was. Hence why I have repeatedly asked you to show me where they have discounted all other factors, so tell me have they?

Do you not understand the difference.

My evidence shows such measure clearly had no affect with nets, his evidence is based on a hunch, based again off another hunch in Australia, where levels dropped where access was limited to two methods, which does not prove they were the cause, it only shows they might have contributed, but not that they have

so now you accept it might have contributed rather that the No it didn`t you have been so saying all night ......well i guess any movement in the right direction is movement ....well done

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:39 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

No all that shows is that through that time suicide rates fell, it does not show evidence for the link it was because of gas changes in appliances, they assume it was. Hence why I have repeatedly asked you to show me where they have discounted all other factors, so tell me have they?

Do you not understand the difference.

My evidence shows such measure clearly had no affect with nets, his evidence is based on a hunch, based again off another hunch in Australia, where levels dropped where access was limited to two methods, which does not prove they were the cause, it only shows they might have contributed, but not that they have
so now you accept it might have contributed rather that the No it didn`t you have been so saying all night ......well i guess any movement in the right direction is movement ....well done

Nope, I don' accept anything until I see evidence that it does, I stated it is a possibility, because unlike you I do not discount anything!

Seriously how many times are you going to avoid countering my points?

Stop being a pathetic weasel

So once again, answer all the posts you have avoided and stop wasting my time, eiither answer them or admit you know fuck all

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:44 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
so now you accept it might have contributed rather that the No it didn`t you have been so saying all night ......well i guess any movement in the right direction is movement ....well done

Nope, I don' accept anything until I see evidence that it does, I stated it is a possibility, because unlike you I do not discount anything!

Seriously how many times are you going to avoid countering my points?

Stop being a pathetic weasel

So once again, answer all the posts you have avoided and stop wasting my time, eiither answer them or admit you know fuck all

same amount you keep avoiding answering mine , so far you have moved from the experts are wrong and detoxification had no effect too as you said "it only shows it might have contributed"
I kind of see that as a win for me
and more insults tut tut tut

ps i am not forcing you to reply am i

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:49 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Nope, I don' accept anything until I see evidence that it does, I stated it is a possibility, because unlike you I do not discount anything!

Seriously how many times are you going to avoid countering my points?

Stop being a pathetic weasel

So once again, answer all the posts you have avoided and stop wasting my time, eiither answer them or admit you know fuck all
same amount you keep avoiding answering mine , so far you have moved from the experts are wrong and detoxification had no effect too as you said "it only shows it might have contributed"
I kind of see that as a win for me

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

I have answered all your points, you as seen have failed each time to answer any of mine, your response was to counter some experts, that is not even a point or a counter but you clutching at straws.

I have shows the view on methods is based on two studies one here and Australia, which as seen you were clueless on where rates decreased over a set period of time.

So you need to back up their claims with evidence that proves beyond doubt the decrease was because of the changed habitat.

Do I have to go back and post my points against, or are you going to conti ue to be a chikd?

Good luck

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:55 am

Actually all you have said all night is the experts are wrong and blamed there methodology you have provided no peer reviewed rebuttal
you have totally dismissed there finding up until about twenty minutes ago when you said "it only shows it might have contributed"
That's movement from your original dismissal of the facts and expert opinion

ps the fact stil remains that in the period LD mentioned the over all suicide rate fell ,it also pointed to the demographic of the population that it seems to have affected and also gave a explanation why they thought that way

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:05 am

But we fall back to the original post

The coal gas story. United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960-71.
Kreitman N.
Abstract

A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked ddecline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content

Aka detoxification of aforesaid gas

CO = carbon monoxide ... a gas a very bad gas

Detailed analysis yea!!! Hello knock knock any body in ?Detailed analysis that`s not opinion, that`s detailed analysis
And what does that detailed analysis say ? clue in bold above
Your argument is to dispute the methodology of that "detailed analysis" but have yet to offer any scientific studies or Detailed analysis to that effect

cause and effect

In fact
Your whole argument rests on the fact you are a risk management bod as you stated and know better than the experts who actually did the Detailed analysis that confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas detoxification as was pointed out

And that's the report's conclusion is

CONCLUSION
Despite a minor reservation based on the GP
consulting habits of CO suicides, the close temporal
association between the declining CO content of
domestic gas and the fall in suicides due to this
agent while those from other causes have followed
a quite different trend, lead to the conclusion
that there is a direct causal relationship between
the two phenomena.

So in the time period in question the suicide rate (people taking their own life) overall fell as the graph shows
However, methods of suicide increased.... And experts say there is a direct causal relationship between
The two phenomena IE the detoxification and the drop in suicide over all and the increase in the methods

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/?page=7

so

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:46 am

So after I fell asleep waiting, I find two posts that did not answer my points yet again

Score.

PMSL as seen now you are just repeating yourself and cannot answer, you are thus clueless

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:49 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:Actually all you have said all night is the experts are wrong and blamed there methodology you have provided no peer reviewed rebuttal
you have totally dismissed there finding up until about twenty minutes ago when you said "it only shows it might have contributed"
That's movement from your original dismissal of the facts and expert opinion

ps the fact stil remains that in the period LD mentioned the over all suicide rate fell ,it also pointed to the demographic of the population that it seems to have affected and also gave a explanation why they thought that way

No I have stated "some" experts are clearly wrong in their assumption to claim a link, when they cannot discount other factors, when as seen all they went off was to them a connection on suicides decreasing failing to see why they rose again.

In other words it was flawed

So are u going to do as sassy, and Irn has done through out and fail to counter my points and as seen claim experts who as seen have not actual evidence as I gace you with the bridge in Canada?

The three of you have claimed to know this and yet the 3 of you know absolutely nothing on this.

The sassy team strikes again.

Fail

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:04 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:Actually all you have said all night is the experts are wrong and blamed there methodology you have provided no peer reviewed rebuttal
you have totally dismissed there finding up until about twenty minutes ago when you said "it only shows it might have contributed"
That's movement from your original dismissal of the facts and expert opinion

ps the fact stil remains that in the period LD mentioned the over all suicide rate fell ,it also pointed to the demographic of the population that it seems to have affected and also gave a explanation why they thought that way

No I have stated "some" experts are clearly wrong in their assumption to claim a link, when they cannot discount other factors, when as seen all they went off was to them a connection on suicides decreasing failing to see why they rose again.

In other words it was flawed

So are u going to do as sassy, and Irn has done through out and fail to counter my points and as seen claim experts who as seen have not actual evidence as I gace you with the bridge in Canada?

The three of you have claimed to know this and yet the 3 of you know absolutely nothing on this.

The sassy team strikes again.

Fail

sassy team ??? You're a bit paranoid about sassy and seemingly irn as well.......is that how you cope ?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:05 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:But we fall back to the original post

The coal gas story. United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960-71.
Kreitman N.
Abstract

A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked ddecline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content

Aka detoxification of aforesaid gas

CO = carbon monoxide ... a gas a very bad gas

Detailed analysis yea!!! Hello knock knock any body in ?Detailed analysis that`s not opinion, that`s detailed analysis
And what does that detailed analysis say ? clue in bold above
Your argument is to dispute the methodology of that "detailed analysis" but have yet to offer any scientific studies or Detailed analysis to that effect

cause and effect

In fact
Your whole argument rests on the fact you are a risk management bod as you stated and know better than the experts who actually did the Detailed analysis that confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas detoxification as was pointed out

And that's the report's conclusion is

CONCLUSION
Despite a minor reservation based on the GP
consulting habits of CO suicides, the close temporal
association between the declining CO content of
domestic gas and the fall in suicides due to this
agent while those from other causes have followed
a quite different trend, lead to the conclusion
that there is a direct causal relationship between
the two phenomena.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/?page=7

Hilarious, what it also states directly after:

There are three main implications that arise:

First, studies must distinguish between CO2 and other forms. (Thus first admission they donot discount other factors) Which it adds the non-CO2 rate has increased

Second, , Regional and age differences, where in some areas it has increased, this leaves the interpretation open to flaws

Third, how can one method have such reaching affects, in other words they do not know, in other words it is a guess.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:06 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

No I have stated "some" experts are clearly wrong in their assumption to claim a link, when they cannot discount other factors, when as seen all they went off was to them a connection on suicides decreasing failing to see why they rose again.

In other words it was flawed

So are u going to do as sassy, and Irn has done through out and fail to counter my points and as seen claim experts who as seen have not actual evidence as I gace you with the bridge in Canada?

The three of you have claimed to know this and yet the 3 of you know absolutely nothing on this.

The sassy team strikes again.

Fail
sassy team ??? You're a bit paranoid about sassy and seemingly irn as well.......is that how you cope ?

No paranoia there, we all know your history there sunshine.

Is that your counter now, more bullshit?

So as seen you have still failed to answer my points:

Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:09 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:Actually all you have said all night is the experts are wrong and blamed there methodology you have provided no peer reviewed rebuttal
you have totally dismissed there finding up until about twenty minutes ago when you said "it only shows it might have contributed"
That's movement from your original dismissal of the facts and expert opinion

ps the fact stil remains that in the period LD mentioned the over all suicide rate fell ,it also pointed to the demographic of the population that it seems to have affected and also gave a explanation why they thought that way

No I have stated "some" experts are clearly wrong in their assumption to claim a link, when they cannot discount other factors, when as seen all they went off was to them a connection on suicides decreasing failing to see why they rose again.

In other words it was flawed

So are u going to do as sassy, and Irn has done through out and fail to counter my points and as seen claim experts who as seen have not actual evidence as I gace you with the bridge in Canada?

The three of you have claimed to know this and yet the 3 of you know absolutely nothing on this.

The sassy team strikes again.

Fail

I haven't claimed anything? All I have done is cite peer reviewed and published research it`s you dismissing that research
As I said experts and world renowned organizations Vs Risk management bod with undetermined qualifications

It`s No brainer really Didge you get a 3 from Len i am afraid

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:12 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

No I have stated "some" experts are clearly wrong in their assumption to claim a link, when they cannot discount other factors, when as seen all they went off was to them a connection on suicides decreasing failing to see why they rose again.

In other words it was flawed

So are u going to do as sassy, and Irn has done through out and fail to counter my points and as seen claim experts who as seen have not actual evidence as I gace you with the bridge in Canada?

The three of you have claimed to know this and yet the 3 of you know absolutely nothing on this.

The sassy team strikes again.

Fail
I haven't claimed anything? All I have done is cite peer reviewed and published research it`s you dismissing that research
As I said experts and world renowned organizations Vs Risk management bod with undetermined qualifications

It`s No brainer really Didge you get a 3 from Len i am afraid

Yes you are poorly claiming off something you have not read, it may help if you actually read it before you post as seen, where you fail to understand even where they see problems, but hey hp, am happy to point this out for you.

You have some experts as seen I have experts that show and disagree, what you asked for, thus you are clutching at straws.

Now are you going to address my points or just keep Copy and pasting this one claim, which even they admit has flaws?

Who is Len?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:13 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
sassy team ??? You're a bit paranoid about sassy and seemingly irn as well.......is that how you cope ?

No paranoia there, we all know your history there sunshine.

Is that your counter now, more bullshit?

So as seen you have still failed to answer my points:

Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

you should make that your signature and i am not making you answer so how i am wasteing your time not really sure if you have a problem with that the only person to blame is yourself really isn`t it
Your the one who knows better than expert detailed analysis

Is there an alter some where I can worship at??

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:15 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
I haven't claimed anything? All I have done is cite peer reviewed and published research it`s you dismissing that research
As I said experts and world renowned organizations Vs Risk management bod with undetermined qualifications

It`s No brainer really Didge you get a 3 from Len i am afraid

Yes you are poorly claiming off something you have not read, it may help if you actually read it before you post as seen, where you fail to understand even where they see problems, but hey hp, am happy to point this out for you.

You have some experts as seen I have experts that show and disagree, what you asked for, thus you are clutching at straws.

Now are you going to address my points or just keep Copy and pasting this one claim, which even they admit has flaws?

Who is Len?

you have no experts just your opinion on the methodology

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:16 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

No paranoia there, we all know your history there sunshine.

Is that your counter now, more bullshit?

So as seen you have still failed to answer my points:

Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.
you should make that your signature and i am not making you answer so how i am wasteing your time not really sure if you have a problem with that the only person to blame is yourself really isn`t it
Your the one who knows better than expert detailed analysis

Is there an alter some where I can worship at??

So you cannot answer my points, what a suprise.

Who is Len?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:17 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes you are poorly claiming off something you have not read, it may help if you actually read it before you post as seen, where you fail to understand even where they see problems, but hey hp, am happy to point this out for you.

You have some experts as seen I have experts that show and disagree, what you asked for, thus you are clutching at straws.

Now are you going to address my points or just keep Copy and pasting this one claim, which even they admit has flaws?

Who is Len?
you have no experts just your opinion on the methodology

I have plenty of evidence, now you are just not answering my point because you cannot and now make up people called Len.

Who is Len?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:18 am

Who is Len?

Tv advert

Len Goodman

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:18 am

Someone is going to end up banned by forum motion

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:20 am

Again what connection does Len have to me?

Trying to cover your error now, so again

Who is Len

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:21 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
you have no experts just your opinion on the methodology

I have plenty of evidence, now you are just not answering my point because you cannot and now make up people called Len.

Who is Len?

you have evidence that detoxification of gas DID NOT reduce the suicide rate as the other experts have said. detailed evidence is it ?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:21 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

I have plenty of evidence, now you are just not answering my point because you cannot and now make up people called Len.

Who is Len?

you have evidence that detoxification of gas DID NOT reduce the suicide rate as the other experts have said. detailed evidence is it ?

Do you have evidence that it did?

No

So lets get back to your big fuck up

Who is Len?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:21 am

Didge wrote:Someone is going to end up banned by forum motion

they are ,,,,,whys that ?........or who ?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:23 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:Someone is going to end up banned by forum motion
they are ,,,,,whys that ?........or who ?

Yes they will and banned from here.

So again who is Len?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:27 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
they are ,,,,,whys that ?........or who ?

Yes they will and banned from here.

So again who is Len?

so you have asked me that same question 3 times now and obviously failed to see that i replied 6 posts above with not only a name but also a you tube video of the advert

i see a neurological disorder hear you obviously have an inability to see answers to questions you ask and is why you go round and round asking for replys s you can't actually see ....explains a lot that does

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:27 am

I guess someone knows they have been exposed

So again who is Len?

What relevance would a person in an advert to foods give me a score.

That has no sense

So try again

Who is Len

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:29 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
they are ,,,,,whys that ?........or who ?

Yes they will and banned from here.

So again who is Len?

who will will and banned from here.? i made this big so you can see it cheers

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:30 am

Didge wrote:I guess someone knows they have been exposed

So again who is Len?

What relevance would a person in an advert to foods give me a score.

That has no sense

So try again

Who is Len

Crist in a bucket ....i think i broke Didge
Obviously did not watch the video...

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:31 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes they will and banned from here.

So again who is Len?

who will will and banned from here.? i made this big so you can see it

Well I find it interesting that my previous Boss was called Len when I was a Planner and then you state a Len I would get a 3 from Len as in a score mark.

Coincidence or the fact you know how to hack into accounts?

Well maybe we now know who was the guilty party on the PM's I guess.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:32 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:I guess someone knows they have been exposed

So again who is Len?

What relevance would a person in an advert to foods give me a score.

That has no sense

So try again

Who is Len
Crist in a bucket ....i think i broke Didge
Obviously did not watch the video...

It has no connection

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:34 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
who will will and banned from here.? i made this big so you can see it

Well I find it interesting that my previous Boss was called Len when I was a Planner and then you state a Len I would get a 3 from Len as in a score mark.

Coincidence or the fact you know how to hack into accounts?

Well maybe we now know who was the guilty party on the PM's I guess.

HAHAHAHAHAH .........................

by Sponsored content