<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do not procrastinate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://airminded.org/2009/10/28/do-not-procrastinate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://airminded.org/2009/10/28/do-not-procrastinate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=do-not-procrastinate</link>
	<description>Airpower and British society, 1908-1941</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 16:07:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2009/10/28/do-not-procrastinate/comment-page-1/#comment-117416</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=2760#comment-117416</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s the one I was thinking of, thanks. Let that be a lesson, kids: sloppy note-taking can lead to serendipitous discoveries!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That's the one I was thinking of, thanks. Let that be a lesson, kids: sloppy note-taking can lead to serendipitous discoveries!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PD Smith</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2009/10/28/do-not-procrastinate/comment-page-1/#comment-117305</link>
		<dc:creator>PD Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=2760#comment-117305</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a fascinating advertisement! Thanks for posting it. I think the one you recall from my book (p. 102) is the Harrods &quot;Respirators for the Troops&quot; advert in the Times (29 Apr 1915). It was a response to a Daily Mail campaign to get the women of Britain to make home-made face masks for their men at the front. Harrods offered products ‘as per official requirements’, such as ‘absorbent cotton wool covered gauze, with wide elastic band, 3/9 per doz’. 

Millions of masks were made but as a defence against poison gas they were worse than useless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That's a fascinating advertisement! Thanks for posting it. I think the one you recall from my book (p. 102) is the Harrods "Respirators for the Troops" advert in the Times (29 Apr 1915). It was a response to a Daily Mail campaign to get the women of Britain to make home-made face masks for their men at the front. Harrods offered products ‘as per official requirements’, such as ‘absorbent cotton wool covered gauze, with wide elastic band, 3/9 per doz’. </p>
<p>Millions of masks were made but as a defence against poison gas they were worse than useless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2009/10/28/do-not-procrastinate/comment-page-1/#comment-117255</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=2760#comment-117255</guid>
		<description>Certainly the pads were far easier to make. At this point in time British troops were being issued with the same impregnated cotton pads the police were recommending for civilian use -- civilians made them at home and they were posted off to the troops. I don&#039;t think it was clear how useless they were. Luckily they didn&#039;t last long but the next few models weren&#039;t much more sophisticated; it wasn&#039;t until 1916 that respirators began to become available. So it was a combination of necessity and ignorance.

But I would also doubt that the government would have considered stockpiling gas masks for civilian use -- civil defence was largely seen as a responsibility for individuals and families, not government. So I&#039;d say, but then WWI civil defence is even less studied than WWII civil defence ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly the pads were far easier to make. At this point in time British troops were being issued with the same impregnated cotton pads the police were recommending for civilian use -- civilians made them at home and they were posted off to the troops. I don't think it was clear how useless they were. Luckily they didn't last long but the next few models weren't much more sophisticated; it wasn't until 1916 that respirators began to become available. So it was a combination of necessity and ignorance.</p>
<p>But I would also doubt that the government would have considered stockpiling gas masks for civilian use -- civil defence was largely seen as a responsibility for individuals and families, not government. So I'd say, but then WWI civil defence is even less studied than WWII civil defence ...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Williams</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2009/10/28/do-not-procrastinate/comment-page-1/#comment-117196</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/?p=2760#comment-117196</guid>
		<description>I suspect that the advice not to bother with gas masks was motivated as much by desire to avert panic as by scientific evidence. The sensible time to say &quot;gas masks are needed&quot; is when you&#039;ve already got 6 million of them stockpiled ready for distribution. For example, it&#039;s pretty clear from the papers of the committee tasked with developing gas defence in the 1930s and 1940s for babies and children that the masks they did come up with were not effective - but they were very keen to say that they were.  Source - some paper I heard at Social History this year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect that the advice not to bother with gas masks was motivated as much by desire to avert panic as by scientific evidence. The sensible time to say "gas masks are needed" is when you've already got 6 million of them stockpiled ready for distribution. For example, it's pretty clear from the papers of the committee tasked with developing gas defence in the 1930s and 1940s for babies and children that the masks they did come up with were not effective - but they were very keen to say that they were.  Source - some paper I heard at Social History this year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

