Philiber Té Posté 1 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 1 octobre 2014 Il va falloir que tu t'y fasses, ces gens sont tes amis Philiber. En même temps, tant qu'ils sont les seuls à pouvoir comprendre ce qu'ils racontent, je ne suis pas trop inquiet !
Tramp Posté 1 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 1 octobre 2014 C'est amusant, selon l'Express qui reprend l'Apec http://www.lexpress.fr/emploi/conseils-emploi/infographie-jeunes-diplomes-quelles-filieres-menent-le-plus-a-l-emploi_1603184.html les filières social, psychologie, science de l'éducation, sciences humaines au niveau master 2 ont des biens meilleures stat' en prespective de premier emploi que le marketing, la chimie et la biologie (qui semble être la pire formation sur ce critère). (le monde est sauf la sociologie offre peu de débouchés) L'Édnat recrute (quelle surprise!) et les Français s'appauvrissent (plus de social). Marketing c'est le fourre-tout de ceux qui sont en école de commerce et ne savent pas quoi faire.
Tramp Posté 1 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 1 octobre 2014 http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/insolites/2014/10/01/25007-20141001ARTFIG00168--l-assemblee-francois-rebsamen-ne-veut-plus-etre-appele-ministre-du-travail.php Exactement 3 ans plus tôt, ça faisait bien rire les socialistes. J'en ai de plus en plus marre de leurs conneries et de leurs enfantillages relevés sérieusement par les journaleux.
free jazz Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Hygiénisme et bureaucratie bruxelloise contre la culture européenne. Cadmium: The rare paint pigment faces a Europe-wide ban and artists are seeing red http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/cadmium-the-rare-paint-pigment-faces-a-europewide-ban-and-artists-are-seeing-red-9756636.html
FabriceM Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Toutes les oeuvres contaminées par des peintures au cadmium sont donc des déchets toxiques. Toutes les oeuvres en contenant doivent être mises sous enceinte étanche ou retirées. Tous les musées contenant ces oeuvres doivent être fermés au public le temps de réaliser ces travaux et de réaliser des analyse de contamination de l'air, suivies éventuellement de travaux de décontamination. Plus sérieusement. Les suédois ont l'air d'être des spécialistes du trollage législatif. C'est le pays des députés qui proposent d'interdire aux mecs de pisser debout. Evidemment sans suite autre que du gros buzz.C'est juste un épisode de plus dans la série. Les suédois ont envoyé un rapport de proposition de restriction à l'UE, qui va l'examiner, avec zéro chances que ça soit accepté, quel que soit le mal qu'on pense de l'UE. Quoi que, en examinant le rapport de 200 pages de l'agence suédoise, j'ai un doute. Quelques pépites issues du rapport : If the cadmium input originating from artists’ paints is removed the average intake via food over 100 years is estimated to be reduced by 0.0012 μ g cadmium day-1 (compared to baseline), which is equivalent to 0.0081% of total intake via food (see section B.9.7) FemalesThe aetiological fraction (for cadmium in food originating from artists’ paints) thus equals:0.0081 % * 12.7 % = 0.0010 %The number of fractures each year in EU in females >50 years of age is 4.6 million (Table 45).Number of fractures that can be attributed to dietary cadmium originating from artists’ paints:0.0010 % * 4.6 million = 47 extra fractures per yearMalesThe aetiological fraction (for cadmium in food originating from artists’ paints) thus equals:0.0081 % * 6.78 % = 0.00055 %The number of fractures each year in EU in males >50 years of age is 2.4 million (Table 45)Number of fractures that can be attributed to dietary cadmium originating from artists’ paints:0.00055 % * 2.4 million = 13 extra fractures per year Breast cancer[..] According to Ferlay et al (2013) there were 364 400 incident cases of breast cancer in EU27 in 2012. Data from Sweden for year 2011 (Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare 2012) indicate that 82 % of all breast cancer cases occurred in women > 50 years. Assuming that this figure is valid for the whole EU 27, this means that there were 298 800 incident postmenopausal breast cancer cases in EU27 in 2012. The EU 27 population of women aged 50 years and above was 102.2 million in 2012 (Eurostat 2013g), which indicates an incidence rate of 292 per 100 000. Assuming that this incidence rate will remain and that the EU 27 population of women aged 50 years or more will increase to 128 million (Table 43), the estimated number of postmenopausal breast cancer cases will be 374 200 per year.Using the RR from the study by Julin et al (2012a, , RR=1.036 per μg Cd/day, the excess risk thus equals:374 200 cases * (1.036-1) = 13 472 extra cases each year (ages 50 and above) per μg Cd via food /day.The estimated quantity of cadmium in the food originating from artists’ paints is 0.0012 μg Cd /day (see Table 42, Scenario .Thus, this exposure gives rise to:0.0012 * 13 472 = 16 extra cases of breast cancer per year. CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACTIONThe report argues that the proposed restriction will lead to a reduction in cadmium intake via food which in turn will lead to a reduction in the number of fractures affecting women and men over 50 years of age, and in the number of women over 50 afflicted with breast cancer. The effects on fracture and breast cancer cases in the EU 27 from a full restriction on the use of cadmium based artists’ paints will grow linearly from zero at the time of implementation to the following levels after 150 years:• Female fractures: 47 fewer cases/year• Male fractures: 13 fewer cases/year• Breast cancers: 16 fewer cases/yearThe socio-economic benefits of the proposed restriction depend on the time frame chosen for the analysis. The (present value of) annual benefits are continually increasing throughout the 150 years analysed. The cumulative benefits are estimated to be €18 million after 50 years and €113 million after 150 years. This does not take into account other possible negative health effects of cadmium exposure via food – such as kidneydamage, endometrial cancer, and developmental neurotoxicity–that have not been quantified in this report. According to the report, the monetary costs of this restriction option are likely to be small or negative. If expected losses in consumer utility are accounted for, then the quantified economic costs are larger –in aggregate terms– than the estimated benefits for the first 74 years after the restriction is implemented. In the longer term the benefits do however outweigh the cost. Toute l'analyse des couts serait à se rouler par terre, si la folie bureaucratique n'était pas un phénomène aussi effrayant et tragique. E.2.1.1.2 CostsThe quantified costs are described in detail in Section F.2. A condensed version of that analysis is presented here.There are primarily three economic impacts of this restriction option; (1) the need for the users of cadmium based artists’ paints to cease their use and switch to alternatives, (2) the costs for actors throughout the supply chain of cadmium based paints being discarded or sold at reduced prices due to the introduction of the proposed ban, and (3) losses of public good values related to historical art works in need of restoration and also to some extent the values related to the sustenance of historical forms of art.Two other costs are also identified, but these are likely to be of marginal extent. One is the monetary implications for paint producers, importers, and distributors. These are likely to be small. Suppliers of pigments and artists’ paints will lose revenue from the cadmium based products, but will probably be compensated by increased revenues from the alternative paints.Another marginal source of costs from this proposal is the administrative effect on the public authorities. These are for example the costs related to the REACH legislative process itself, and the costs related to enforcement of the restriction at the Member State level.Due to the eventual implement of the restriction option actors throughout the supply chain might have to discard cadmium based artists’ paints – or be forced to sell them at reduced prices. The proposed implementation period for the restriction is one year. This should be enough time for the distributors and the retailers to be informed and to take the actions necessary to avoid most losses related to discarding products or having to sell them at reduced prices. Apart from adjusting their purchases of new stocks, distributors have the option of selling any remaining stock to distributors overseas that are not affected by the proposed restriction, this might however require price reductions or additional administrative costs. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that there will be some discards and other costs related to the introduction of the restriction. In this analysis it is assumed these costs will be equivalent to 20% of one year’s revenue. Given the total annual quantity of 39 tons cadmium based artists’ paints and a market value of around €0.22-0.32 per gram, the revenue on the retail market for cadmium based artists’ paints is around €8.5-12.6 million per year. The centre of this range is €10.6 million, or €8.5 million when VAT is excluded. The retail value of cadmium based artists’ paints is in Section F.2 estimated to be €8.5 million per year (excluding VAT). A one-off cost equivalent to one fifth of this – or €1.7 million – is assumed due to the introduction of the restriction.As indicated in Section C.2.4 alternative paints are available at no additional cost (or at lower costs) relative to the cadmium based products. Assuming that the amount of paint required is around 20-50% higher when the alternatives are used, and that the alternatives cost 35% less than the cadmium paints, the financial costs for users of switching from cadmium based artists’ paints to the alternatives are between zero and minus 20%37, i.e. that the costs are reduced. A central estimate of minus 10% will be used below. Given the market revenue, excluding VAT, the financial costs due to the proposed restriction are approximately minus €0.85 million (with a likely range between minus €1.7 million per year and 0).Two basic explanations are possible for the continued use of cadmium based artists’ paints when the available alternatives are cheaper. The first is that the users prefer the characteristics of the cadmium paints and are willing to pay the additional cost they carry. Stakeholder consultations indicate that this is the case among some artists’ paints users. The second explanation is that the users of cadmium paints are misinformed about the characteristics of the alternatives relative to the cadmium paints and would use the cheaper products if they had full information.For the sake of simplicity, we can think of two types of artists’ paints consumers. One type consists of consumers that – if fully informed – find no substantial difference in the characteristics of cadmium paints relative to alternative paints. This type will be referred to as “Indifferent”. If all artists’ paints users always are “Indifferent” then the consumer utility loss of not being able to use cadmium paints is zero or lower. The other type of consumers analysed here is “Pro cadmium”, who finds the cadmium paints to be superior to the alternatives, and is willing to pay the (eventual) excess financial costs related to the cadmium paints. A “Pro cadmium” consumer will suffer utility losses if banned from using the cadmium paints. This utility loss is equivalent with the difference in consumer surplus – i.e. the additional amount the consumer would be willing to pay over and above the price offered – gained from the cadmium paints, relative to the alternatives. If all users are “Pro cadmium” in the extreme, i.e. that they find the alternatives to be of no use at all, then the consumer utility loss from the restriction is the aggregated consumer surplus of the cadmium paints market. A rough approximation of the size of the consumer surplus is that it is equivalent to consumer expenditure divided by two, i.e. €5.3 million per year. A number of reasons indicate that a relatively small share of the total current consumer surplus will be lost. The assumption made in this analysis is that this share is 10%, i.e. that the loss in consumer surplus due to the restriction is €0.53 million per year.Assuming that the consumer surplus will grow in line with GDP and using the same discounting procedure as described in Section F.1.1 the accumulated present value of the losses in consumer surplus will be €19.2 million over 50 years and €44.7 million over 150 years. Using the same discounting and growth assumptions for the financial costs, these are in aggregate terms estimated to decline (i.e. accumulated cost savings) by €30.7 million over 50 years and €71.6 million over 150 years. Note that, in the estimation of loss in consumer surplus, the effect on consumers’ financial costs is already included.The public good values related to the historical art works in need of restoration, and to a lesser extent the value related to the sustenance of historical forms of art, are important but very problematic to place monetary values on. These are arguments against a complete ban that are taken into account below in restriction option 2.In summary, restriction option 1 is estimated to generate one-off costs of around €1.7 million due to products being discarded or sold overseas at reduced prices when the restriction is introduced. Artists’ paints consumers are likely to experience financial costs reductions of approximately €0.85 million per year (excluding VAT). The present value of aggregate cost savings are estimated to €30.7 million over 50 years and €71.6 million over 150 years. Apart from this, the monetary effects on producers, distributors and retailers of cadmium based artists’ paints are likely to be small. The major economic costs are probably not monetary, but rather in the form of losses in public good values and in reduced consumer surplus. The consumer surplus loss (with the financial cost savings factored in) is estimated to be €0.53 million per year. The present value of aggregate consumer surplus losses is estimated to €19.2 million over 50 years and €44.7 million over 150 years. ANNEX XV RESTRICTION REPORT – CADMIUM AND ITS COMPOUNDS INARTISTS’ PAINTS
Noob Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 C'est le problème quand les médecins cherchent à faire des analyses de coût.
Hayek's plosive Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 C'est le problème quand les médecins gogols qui ne comprennent rien aux lois de distribution élémentaires cherchent à faire des analyses de coût. Corrigé. Non mais quelle pignouferie ce truc.
Mathieu_D Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Amusant ça, il n'y a aucun seuil ni rien, le moindre picogramme de cadmium causerait une fracture ?
Hayek's plosive Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Consommer de la coke ou de la MDMA équitable, c’est possible ? De toutes les questions que je ne me suis jamais posées dans la vie, celle-la en est une. La médiocrité de l'article est de bonne facture. Faut dire que citer Tryo en guise d'approbation pour un journaleux qui n'a toujours pas fini sa crise d'adolescence, ca pose le décor.
PJE Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Quand tu achètes de la cocaïne tu aides un paysan colombien et quand tu achètes de l'héroïne tu aides un paysan afghan.
FabriceM Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Amusant ça, il n'y a aucun seuil ni rien, le moindre picogramme de cadmium causerait une fracture ? p82 Breast cancer A study from a population-based prospective cohort (Swedish Mammography Cohort) (Julin et al 2012a) will be used for estimating the number of breast cancer cases that can be explained by dietary cadmium. A short summary of the results is given in Table 41. For more details, see section B.5.8.2. Table 41 Summary of results from the study on breast cancer by Julin et al. (2012a) Tertiles of cadmium intake, μg/day <13 13-16 >16 Median cadmium intake, μg/day 12 15 17 Relative risk (95% CI) 1.00 1.06 (0.95-1.18 1.21 (1.07-1.36) Expressed as a continuous risk, dietary cadmium was associated with a RR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.08-1.29), per continuous 5 μg/day increment, for overall breast cancer, which equals a 3.6 % increased risk per μg Cd/day (95% CI 1.7-5.5 %) (exposure via food). The association was tested for non-linearity, but no support of a non-linear relationship was indicated (Julin 2012b). Le risque est linéarisé à partir des résultats observés dans les différents tertiles. A l'intérieur du premier tertile, aucun moyen de savoir si l'hypothèse de linéarité vaut toujours. Et puis, quand tu vois la tronche des résultats brutes de l'étude, tu te dis que le potentiel de bullshit est assez monstrueux. Tu n'as virtuellement aucun signal dans les données brutes. Ce sont les ajustements pour ceci-cela qui permettent d'observer une tendance significative. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/72/6/1459.full Plus tu creuses dans ce genre de dossiers (en ayant un minimum de culture scientifique) plus tu détectes d'aberrations congénitales rédhibitoires ....
FabriceM Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Si Nick passe ici, je gagne un nouveau surnom.
Jesrad Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Je vois marqué "prospective cohort studies", donc oui, ces calculs d'impact sont du pur bullshit, surtout à des seuils et impacts aussi microscopiques.
Mister Polark Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Syndicats interdits dans l'armée : la France épinglée JUSTICE - La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) a condamnée la France pour son interdiction des syndicats dans l'armée. Source et suite : http://www.europe1.fr/societe/syndicats-dans-l-armee-la-cedh-condamne-la-france-2248401 Un avis ? Quel est la réponse/position libéral sur l'interdiction de la grèVe ou de se syndiqué au sein de l'armée ?
Tramp Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 C'est bien. Les syndicats de la fonction publique forment toujours un État dans l'État.
NoName Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Disons que c'est bien tant que les syndicats sont subventionné
sans Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 Ça dépend ce qu'on entend par "interdiction", si "interdiction" veux dire que on a le droit de te foutre à la porte si tu te syndique ok, si ça veut dire cour martiale, faut pas déconner.
Tramp Posté 2 octobre 2014 Signaler Posté 2 octobre 2014 C'est dur que ça ne soit pas le cas dans la fonction publique.
Messages recommandés