By using my smartphone I can let people see which Doctor's I attend to pick up my anti-depressants, where I met my convict Dad for a drink last night and where I stopped by to have a quickie with my sisters husband last night. This information is used for market research, what are they going to do? Send me ad's for nymphomaniac's anonymous. Sometimes this information can get leaked or hacked, or maybe people sell it? I could have a stalker ooo the excitement, could be a fine young chap, you never know, or perhaps he'll be on the war path, gosh, didn't consider that. But in the mean time I could get a charmingly large bill for playing playing smurfs village, apparently I brought too many smurfberries, infact 10,000 of them. You'd think I'd remember that! What are smurfberries anyway, maybe I'll get them delivered to my door next week. Turns out little trudy (Sisters son, yes the one I'm shagging) got onto my phone when we were uhh a bit preoccupied. Who pays for that bill of $5,000?? Ya me, wow, that was an expensive shag that night wasn't it! Then Friday night out on the town with the girls and who gets so drunk she looses her phone? Once again.. me. Hey maybe I'll get an ad on alcoholics anonymous too, and some counseling all round, hey you guys know me as well as I do by now. So my phone is lost at at 6am, throbbing headache and unable to get myself up, I hear a smash as the door literally falls to the ground. "Police warrant, you'r under arrest!". Oh shit, my history is catching up on me, still too drunk to move, doesn't matter, they pin me to the ground just incase I decide to make a run for it, wouldn't though, too sore. Get dragged into the po po car in handcuffs for producing and uploading illegal kiddy porn. Ummm so I mighta bin smashed off my face but there's no way my drunk night would of entailed that, pity though because I have no recollection of my whereabouts between 1am and 6am this morning. Screw! I explained I'd lost my phone "oldest trick in the book girl, not buying it". What?! Truth don't count for nothing any more.
Always read the small print: Passwords and privacy functionality, don't give them access.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Brainstorming and inspiration
So after darting around and changing my topic, I've decided to revert back to the original topic. Looking at the lack of security systems on cell phones and how unaware people are of this.
In class I did some brainstorming:
No privacy, no locks, no safety. Wallets, bank cards with no pin or signature required. Money growing on trees, everything free. Looking at the ad at the start of dvd's you rent "You wouldn't steal a car! You wouldn't steal a film!" etc.
What age am I targeting? 7-15. The age where you understand what you are doing is wrong.
Pam mentioned when she first got a mobile phone she had no concept of cost. It was on a plan so she just rung everyone. The bill came after the first month and it was $300. The plan vs pre-paid. Educating kids of cost/value in comparison to what they earn/have.
I figure that the info on the no-password concept is in the terms and conditions when people download or start playing games. So my idea is about scale, making the terms and conditions far bigger than the typical fine print.
Do I.. Make it full of ridiculous information with one fact in there, get peoples attention and see if they pick up on the point? Real fact could be bigger, bolder etc.
Or.. Fill it with real facts from all sorts of places which you wouldn't expect to come across. Make it entertaining and truthful. I don't need to be subtle with my message because I have the best interests of the viewer in mind. It's about information and education.
While on the bus back to Wellington the other day I saw this and was particularly confused. Firstly because I expected it to be the typical sign about chance of fire etc. And secondly because I didn't understand if it was a joke or serious. It was on the way into a small town, levin I think it was, which is where you usually see the fire danger signs. As far as I knew (which is nothing about eczema) the weather didn't effect it, maybe it does, I wouldn't have a clue.
Then going into the next town I saw a sign the same but with the heading "Facial Eczema Spore Count". More confusion, but still it stood out to me because it was different information in a familiar place. I could keep this in mind with my final outcome.
According to RD1 I found out its actually about animals, not the eczema that people get as such.
The facts on facial eczema
Article supplied by Agri-feeds Limited.
Facial Eczema (FE) is caused by a toxin sporidesmin produced by a pasture fungus Pithomyces Chartarum which thrives in warm moist conditions, found mostly in rye grass dominant pastures. This toxin is ingested by animals grazing affected pasture.
Symptoms
The period between spore ingestion and first symptoms depends on the amount of toxic spores actually consumed but can occur within 24 hours.
Affected animals are likely to:
- Go off their feed
- Stop milking
- Become restless
- Seek shade
- Start licking, rubbing and scratching affected areas
After a few weeks:
- Skin lesions start to appear around the face, nostrils, ears, teats, vulva, and on any white areas
- Skin becomes reddened and inflamed, and may then thicken, encrust, blister and weep
- Liver damage and in severe cases, signs of jaundice may be visible
- Ultimately, cows may dry off completely
- Animals pass into a state of chronic ill-health or in extreme cases die. Others may show no clinical signs at all.
Sub-clinical signs:
- Increased barrenness
- Increased deaths at lambing and calving
- Decreased wool and meat growth
- Depressed milk production
Farmers often attribute these signs to something else. The reality however, is these are signs that stock are suffering from sub-clinical facial eczema. Productivity and income will be significantly affected.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Consumer NZ is calling for Mahu Mother and Baby Skin Care products containing a banned ingredient to be withdrawn from sale immediately.
Mahu products are marketed as natural, NZ-made and the "safest choice" for you and your baby. But Consumer has found Mahu products on sale, including a baby lotion, that list a preservative called iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC). IPBC is not allowed in moisturisers or any other "leave on" preparations for children under three years of age.
The chemical is also banned from use in body lotions and creams intended for use on a "large part of the body" and in any oral hygiene or lip care products. However, Consumer found IBPC listed as an ingredient in Mahu Stretch Mark Lotion and Mahu Nipple Cream.
IPBC is better known as a timber preservative. In its pure form, it's classified by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) as having acute oral toxicity and inhalation toxicity. It is considered safe in some cosmetics such as shampoos and deodorants in low concentrations.
IPBC has also been identified as a potential contact allergen. Despite this, Mahu products Consumer bought state "Contains no ingredients that are potentially harmful".
Mahu director Kathryn Fromont told Consumer it stopped using IPBC after restrictions on the ingredient's use were strengthened in 2008, and had asked retailers to withdraw the products. However, Consumer NZ readily found what appeared to be old stock. Fromont said the company would write to retailers again and ask them to remove products.
Consumer chief executive Sue Chetwin said the company should issue an immediate recall. "We've also raised our concerns with ERMA. Better enforcement of product standards is required to ensure consumer safety."
The problems with Mahu's products were discovered as part of our research on so-called "natural" cosmetics, published in this month's Consumer. Chetwin says there's a growing number of cosmetics claiming to be "organic" or "natural" and which are no-such thing.
"We bought 18 brands of skincare products readily available in stores, all of which made claims to be natural options. But behind the marketing hype, many had surprising ingredients," Chetwin said. "Several used the word 'organic' in their brand name but contained synthetic ingredients that wouldn't pass any rigorous organic standard."
Three products - Avalon Organics Lavender Daily Moisturiser, Giovanni Organic Hair Care LA Natural Styling Gel and Jason Pure, Natural & Organic Apricot Deodorant - are made in the US. These brands have been labelled "organic cheater-brands" by the US Organic Consumers Association which has filed a complaint with regulators alleging their products are mostly non-organic formulations.
Kiwi-made product Earths Organics Hand + Body Cream - Violet and Chamomile may contain organic manuka honey and sweet almond oil, but it also contains preservatives butyl paraben, ethyl paraben, methyl paraben, phenolyethanol and propyl paraben. Another, The Aromatherapy Company's Organic Fig and Olive Hand Balm which claims to be made with "the purity of nature" also contains synthetic substances.
Parabens are widely used in cosmetics but questions continue to be raised about the toxicity of some of these substances. Existing rules allow their use in low concentrations. Many cosmetics claim to be "paraben-free" but parabens have often been replaced in these products with other synthetic preservatives.
Only two of the 18 which claimed to be "organic" or "natural" had recognised eco accreditations. They were Dr Hauschka Rose Day Cream Light and Living Nature Refreshing Body Lotion.
Chetwin said products sold as natural or organic needed to demonstrate they lived up to their claims. Making misleading claims is an offence under the Fair Trading Act.
Consumer NZ wants a mandatory standard for "natural" cosmetic claims - one that sets out companies' obligations for ensuring claims are accurate, unambiguous and verifiable.
If you're buying "natural" cosmetics check the ingredients list carefully. Many are likely to contain synthetic chemicals.
Mahu response to consumer product recall etc.
mahu Press Release
16 August 2010
mahu skincare are extremely concerned by the content of a recent Consumer Magazine article and by the reckless approach taken by Consumer Magazine. The article contains many errors, untruths and omissions, a number of which have now been picked up by other media.
mahu were given the opportunity, ahead of publication, to read and comment on the article. They did so and pointed out the errors and untruths. Consumer Magazine, however, were clearly not interested in their story being factual and irresponsibly decided to go ahead and publish, regardless of mahu feedback and comments. mahu can only wonder why.
Here is mahu's response to requests from concerned consumers to present the facts:
- All skin care requires a preservative if it is to have a shelf life of greater than 6 months for the supermarket channel.
- Up until 2008 mahu used Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate (IPBC) in minute quantities as a preservative. Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate (IPBC) was a preservative commonly used by many leading cosmetic and skincare companies prior to 2008. At that time this preservative was believed to be superior to Parabens, because studies had highlighted possible links to some cancers as a result of paraben use.
- mahu's ongoing research and its commitment to both safety and quality lead them to change their formulations so as to remove IPBC. “We are a business that cares deeply about the safety of mums-to-be and their babies” said Kathryn Fromont. “I’m a mother of three young children, and I use mahu products on them and myself”, she added.
- mahu last manufactured with IPBC in September 2007.
- Fact: The New Zealand Health Department issued a notice in 2008 to all companies using IPBC in 'leave on skincare products for under 3 year olds'. This required the reformulation of affected products and allowed for the sale of all remaining stock of affected products over the course of the following 12 months. mahu followed the terms of this notice also and requested retailers to return affected stock for a credit or exchange with product newly formulated without IPBC.
- Fact: The New Zealand Health Department did not ban or request the recall of any mahu products, nor did it single out mahu as Consumer Magazine have done.
- mahu products are batch coded on the bottom of the bottles. This gives full traceability including date of manufacture and ingredient listings.
- mahu have over-labelled ingredient listings on a small number of products in the range as these bottles were pre-printed, and thus it was considered more environmentally-friendly and less wasteful to over-label than to produce new bottles. Over-labelling is a common practice. Consumer Magazine’s assertion that mahu was being deceptive and misleading is refuted in the strongest terms.
So there you have it. The facts. All of this was explained to Consumer Magazine prior to publication, and we emphasise again that they had every opportunity to ensure their story was factually correct. Instead they chose, for whatever reason, to single out mahu and to ignore the facts which were communicated to them.
mahu was started approx 7 years ago by Kathryn and Andrew, a brother and sister team from Hamilton. “mahu is our baby and we have put our heart and soul into creating safe quality skincare for New Zealand mums and their precious babies. We have not, nor will we, deviate from that commitment” said Kathryn Fromont.
"We would like to thank all of our loyal customers for their support and messages of encouragement," said Kathryn Fromont, "I am extremely proud of our integrity as a business. I stand by our values and our ethical and honest approach to all that we do. Our customers and their safety are paramount and our products reflect this deeply personal and heartfelt commitment to their well-being.”
Our products are enthusiastically recommended by midwives throughout NZ, and sold in terrific retailers like Countdown, Foodtown, Woolworths and New World supermarkets.
Kathryn is happy to answer any questions at any time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)