Gig pay

[DWBass]

what bar???

PM'd

 

[okcrum]

This is a matter that should be of interest to all working musicians because we were, and still are in some cases forced to perform in highly unhealthy environments polluted with radioactive cigarette smoke. That's my opinion. I may not be a degreed scientist or research author. But I'm not a ghost writer either.

okcrum, my friend, I think you've cited some highly technical propaganda and double talk that attempts to deny a mere fact. There is no doubt whatsoever scientifically that any form of cigarette smoke inhaled at any concentration is potentially highly dangerous. The matter of radioactivity in cigarette smoke has been adjudicated in US federal courts under class action where the evidence demonstrating big tobacco companies knew of this specific danger and chose to ignore it was unassailable.

Originally, tobacco was organically grown, but this came to an end when demands for nitrates to make high explosives needed for the war effort in WWII forced tobacco growers to switch to calcium phosphate fertilizer. Phosphate rock is the source of the radioactive elements uranium, thorium and radium. During manufacture of the fertilizer most of this is removed when the phosphate rock is dissolved in an acidic solution. But not all of it. Trace amounts of the above radioactive elements are therefore present in commercially produced calcium phosphate fertilizer at various concentrations depending on the manufacturing processes employed ($$$), and also other naturally occurring factors not all of which are predictable.

Obviously, whatever trace radioactive elements are still present in fertilizer will have the potential to be absorbed into tobacco plants themselves, and this is exactly what happens. These radioactive elements naturally decay into radon gas, and this radon is present in tobacco smoke (when the tobacco plants are fertilized with calcium phosphate). Radon is extraordinarily dangerous when inhaled because it naturally decays into Polonium 210, a radioactive isotope that plates out on the surface of lung tissue, irradiating any tissue near it with strong alpha radiation. Think firing a cannonball into a glass menagerie, only on a cellular level. If the body can keep up with repairing the damage to the cells, all is well. Otherwise, cancer will eventually be the outcome. Radon may also be absorbed into the blood plasma via the lungs leading to deposition of sub-microscopic particles of Polonium 210 elsewhere in the body, with the same potential outcome.

No one is going to tell you that lung cancer, and cancer per se was relatively rare prior to World War II. Yet, people were smoking like industrial chimneys back then. Now, cancer and heart disease are the two biggest killers in the country. There are many causes for this, of course, but it is indisputable that it was found that tobacco plants grow like weeds on calcium phosphate fertilizer, making tobacco production unbelievably efficient and sending profits from tobacco products through the roof. Memo's and other documents produced in federal court showed that tobacco company scientists and physicians had warned top executives of the danger of continuing with the use of the calcium phosphate fertilizer, and that said executives decided to plan ahead for what they knew would eventually be lawsuits over the matter, and go forward with making the big profits anyway.

Let's just take a brief look at the propaganda you cited.

<No attempt has been made to express the dose that might be delivered to the body by the isotopes incorporated within the body. The are two reasons for this. First, dose is defined as the energy delivered to a sensitive organ or tissue, divided by the mass of that tissue or organ. It is this author's belief that we do not know the target we should use to calculate dose for any of these radioelements.>

Well, when an ostensible research scientist / author cites their "belief", you can bank on somebody having paid them to believe it. Science isn't about what an author may believe, and you learn after a while to interpret comments like this for what they are. To say something like, "...we do not know the target we should use to calculate dose for any of these radioelements...", is pure poppycock and balderdash. What target? Are we at the firing range? You don't have to know how to calculate the target when it is indisputable that radioactive elements and radioisotopes are extraordinarily dangerous to inhale or ingest and should be avoided when possible at any level of concentration. Good grief. He wants you to stop thinking while he calculates?

<The second of my reasons for not calculating dose has to do with my belief that the cell is actually a proper target for dose calculation, but we do not know how to account for repair processes which we know do exist within the body.>

That point may be true but it's purely academic. We don't have to know how to statistically account for the bodies repair processes when exposed to internalized radioactive isotopes, for example, when we know the undeniable outcome of such exposure in such a tragic number of cases. This is all just pure #$%$# #$%$#.

But hay, if anybody still wants to believe that any form of cigarette smoke is not potentially (and in all likelihood is) radioactive or that it does not place you in extreme danger of lung and other forms of cancer for this reason, go ahead on. Darwin had a point, you know.

There is no safe level of radioactive isotopes or elements that can be inhaled or otherwise ingested into the human body. It's easy to find documentation from the government on the dangers posed by huge mountains of tailings (phosphogypsum) left over from manufacturing calcium phosphate fertilizer. Everybody admits that. You have to dig deep to learn of the problem with radon in cigarette smoke. I hesitate to speak of why this is so here on TB because it is a political issue. I originally learned of this matter from medical doctors I was working with, all of whom are either dead or have retired at this point. Do some research and see what you come up with. If need be, I will dig up some references from the government itself, but I'm busy and would rather not take any more time. At least I tried.

Dismissing measurements and the declination to draw conclusions from them for lack of certainty as to mutation mechanisms as propaganda dismisses your entire position IMO as fanatic, in the pure definition of the word. You draw intent and conclusion from my post that simply do not exist.

In far shorter form, what you're saying is "Don't confuse me with the facts". Enjoy your 8k decays/sec.

 

[Nevada Pete]

Dismissing measurements, and the declination to draw conclusions from them for lack of certainty as to mutation mechanisms, as propaganda, dismisses your entire position IMO as fanatic, in the pure definition of the word. You draw intent and conclusion from my post that simply do not exist.

In far shorter form, what you're saying is "Don't confuse me with the facts". Enjoy your 8k decays/sec.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[okcrum]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I'm well aware of that study, since you've linked it twice and quoted me twice. I'm saddened that you can't even realize I'm referring to baseline radiation in the human body, upon which any additional decays are superimposed.

 

[Nevada Pete]

I do realize the concept of baseline radiation. The problem is, to many people with little to no scientific training, that's an esoteric concept that will go right over their head. It wasn't immediately obvious to me that's what you were talking about. You did explain it better this time around in a way that might be more universally understood. Hopefully. Finally.

My problem, sir, is that the way your initial post came off was to belittle my attempt to warn people regarding one of the greatest frauds and horrific betrayals ever perpetrated upon the American people in our history as a country. The important point is not which of us may be right, or wrong. All that matters in my book is that people realize what's happening to them, and what can happen to them when they are exposed to cigarette smoke. Any amount of cigarette smoke. Ever treated anybody who's dying of cancer. I have. They call it end stage. Cute. Maybe that's because its too horrible for words to describe.

Many people are just plain self-destructive, and won't alter their behavior no matter what anyone says or points out to them. I'm totally fine with that. But some people do have enough self-respect left to realize they're being screwed, and to do something about it. I will strongly refute anything that looks to me like it's trying to dilute that realization. That's all. Other than that, the paper you cited was interesting, and I plan on taking the time to digest it more thoroughly. Haven't been exposed to that line of thought or research.

 

[David Jayne]

All beer in 2050 is Natural Ice.

That and Hipster Douche IPA.

 

[Volker Kirstein]

That and Hipster Douche IPA.

Fortunately, every brewery here (Germany) is a "craft brewery", and any American Swill has to be imported. Not that there's much of a market for Bud Lite here. Neener neener.

 

[David Jayne]

Fortunately, every brewery here (Germany) is a "craft brewery", and any American Swill has to be imported. Not that there's much of a market for Bud Lite here. Neener neener.

Funnily, I stayed at a hotel in Kontanz a couple of years ago and believe it or not it was very popular there with a certain age group!

 

[Colin Cunliffe]

Heard this a few times:
Musician - People that will go 500 miles with $10,000 in gear to go play a 4 hour show for $100.
I believe it goes something like that.

What does the newly qualified musician say?

Do you want fries with your burger?

 

[McG]

We have relationships with a couple singles groups, and it's a hookup scene

 

[Jimmy4string]

We put our band in a Delorean and got it up to 88 MPH and went back to 1982 and i stepped out and a mullet jutted out mah head and we played a gig for $500 and we HAD a crowd i say!

 

[Bunk McNulty]

View attachment 3653382

You know, I never really thought of it that way. But yeah. One place especially, as Jane likes to say, "They're all already effed up when they walk in the door."

 

[delta7fred]

This is a matter that should be of interest to all working musicians because we were, and still are in some cases forced to perform in highly unhealthy environments polluted with radioactive cigarette smoke. That's my opinion. I may not be a degreed scientist or research author. But I'm not a ghost writer either.

okcrum, my friend, I think you've cited some highly technical propaganda and double talk that attempts to deny a mere fact. There is no doubt whatsoever scientifically that any form of cigarette smoke inhaled at any concentration is potentially highly dangerous. The matter of radioactivity in cigarette smoke has been adjudicated in US federal courts under class action where the evidence demonstrating big tobacco companies knew of this specific danger and chose to ignore it was unassailable.

Originally, tobacco was organically grown, but this came to an end when demands for nitrates to make high explosives needed for the war effort in WWII forced tobacco growers to switch to calcium phosphate fertilizer. Phosphate rock is the source of the radioactive elements uranium, thorium and radium. During manufacture of the fertilizer most of this is removed when the phosphate rock is dissolved in an acidic solution. But not all of it. Trace amounts of the above radioactive elements are therefore present in commercially produced calcium phosphate fertilizer at various concentrations depending on the manufacturing processes employed ($$$), and also other naturally occurring factors not all of which are predictable.

Obviously, whatever trace radioactive elements are still present in fertilizer will have the potential to be absorbed into tobacco plants themselves, and this is exactly what happens. These radioactive elements naturally decay into radon gas, and this radon is present in tobacco smoke (when the tobacco plants are fertilized with calcium phosphate). Radon is extraordinarily dangerous when inhaled because it naturally decays into Polonium 210, a radioactive isotope that plates out on the surface of lung tissue, irradiating any tissue near it with strong alpha radiation. Think firing a cannonball into a glass menagerie, only on a cellular level. If the body can keep up with repairing the damage to the cells, all is well. Otherwise, cancer will eventually be the outcome. Radon may also be absorbed into the blood plasma via the lungs leading to deposition of sub-microscopic particles of Polonium 210 elsewhere in the body, with the same potential outcome.

No one is going to tell you that lung cancer, and cancer per se was relatively rare prior to World War II. Yet, people were smoking like industrial chimneys back then. Now, cancer and heart disease are the two biggest killers in the country. There are many causes for this, of course, but it is indisputable that it was found that tobacco plants grow like weeds on calcium phosphate fertilizer, making tobacco production unbelievably efficient and sending profits from tobacco products through the roof. Memo's and other documents produced in federal court showed that tobacco company scientists and physicians had warned top executives of the danger of continuing with the use of the calcium phosphate fertilizer, and that said executives decided to plan ahead for what they knew would eventually be lawsuits over the matter, and go forward with making the big profits anyway.

Let's just take a brief look at the propaganda you cited.

<No attempt has been made to express the dose that might be delivered to the body by the isotopes incorporated within the body. The are two reasons for this. First, dose is defined as the energy delivered to a sensitive organ or tissue, divided by the mass of that tissue or organ. It is this author's belief that we do not know the target we should use to calculate dose for any of these radioelements.>

Well, when an ostensible research scientist / author cites their "belief", you can bank on somebody having paid them to believe it. Science isn't about what an author may believe, and you learn after a while to interpret comments like this for what they are. To say something like, "...we do not know the target we should use to calculate dose for any of these radioelements...", is pure poppycock and balderdash. What target? Are we at the firing range? You don't have to know how to calculate the target when it is indisputable that radioactive elements and radioisotopes are extraordinarily dangerous to inhale or ingest and should be avoided when possible at any level of concentration. Good grief. He wants you to stop thinking while he calculates?

<The second of my reasons for not calculating dose has to do with my belief that the cell is actually a proper target for dose calculation, but we do not know how to account for repair processes which we know do exist within the body.>

That point may be true but it's purely academic. We don't have to know how to statistically account for the bodies repair processes when exposed to internalized radioactive isotopes, for example, when we know the undeniable outcome of such exposure in such a tragic number of cases. This is all just pure #$%$# #$%$#.

But hay, if anybody still wants to believe that any form of cigarette smoke is not potentially (and in all likelihood is) radioactive or that it does not place you in extreme danger of lung and other forms of cancer for this reason, go ahead on. Darwin had a point, you know.

There is no safe level of radioactive isotopes or elements that can be inhaled or otherwise ingested into the human body. It's easy to find documentation from the government on the dangers posed by huge mountains of tailings (phosphogypsum) left over from manufacturing calcium phosphate fertilizer. Everybody admits that. You have to dig deep to learn of the problem with radon in cigarette smoke. I hesitate to speak of why this is so here on TB because it is a political issue. I originally learned of this matter from medical doctors I was working with, all of whom are either dead or have retired at this point. Do some research and see what you come up with. If need be, I will dig up some references from the government itself, but I'm busy and would rather not take any more time. At least I tried.

Smoking in the UK in pubs, bars and public places was banned years ago. I can't remember exactly when but the band I was in at the time were overjoyed because none of us smoked.

 

[EdO.]

Thankfully no smoking here too, except for the occasional casino gig. Back in the day we played a couple places where the only exhaust fan in the place was in the wall right behind the stage. So you're watching this solid cloud of smoke drifting towards you all night...

 

[Nevada Pete]

Smoking in the UK in pubs, bars and public places was banned years ago. I can't remember exactly when but the band I was in at the time were overjoyed because none of us smoked.

Nevada generally bans smoking in all public places and places of employment, but exempts bars, casinos, strip clubs, brothels, marijuana dispensaries (legal weed outlets), retail tobacco stores, and restaurants that do not allow patrons under 21 years of age. So I guess it's not lawful to smoke in massage parlors.

Obviously, we're still in the dark ages with smoking here, as far as people who work in such exempted establishments are concerned. That's not surprising, though, when you consider the mere fact that on a good day, Nevada itself is primitive, and medieval.

A new state law, however, will soon prohibit the use of vapes and e-cigarettes in most public places and indoor places of employment. The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act [sic], ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, which will take effect in Jan. 1, 2020, will no longer allow any vaping products or e-cigarette usage anyplace where smoking is not allowed.

So smoking including smoking legal weed is banned in public places, like on the Strip, for example. But you don't have to actually buy the weed, anyway. Just walk down the Strip and the residual smoke from all the joints and vapes will make you gasp for air if your not used to it. Nevada has a unique way of passing laws and then not paying any attention to them. Step too far out of line, though, and the man will come and take you away. Mouth off a little too much and nobody may ever see you again.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Do you really think there will still be live local music in 2050? All joking aside, I wouldn't be surprised if the day and age of bar/club bands is coming to an end. But what do I know?...

Probably not, but djs will go from one man with a laptop to 4 robots that dance and do light shows

 

[dbsfgyd1]

But ... in 2050 there's no load in, no set up, don't even have to leave home ... it's all holograms and virtual reality. They'll even pay in VR-bucks.

We are being paid with virtual dollars now. Ever ask what's backing it? To the rest of your point, streaming music has basically made us obsolete.

 

[kevindahl]

We are a 4 piece and try to earn between 100 to 150 Cad per musician/night. That's about 40 American lol.

 

[el jeffe bass]

I played electric guitar at the Senior center today. I got a bunch of hugs, fist bumps, handshakes and various expressions of gratitude. All of that and I had the privilege of playing with some fantastic musicians. Since I am retired with a few income streams money is not a motivator. I'm blessed.

 

[CaseyVancouver]

Haha! (Do we laugh or cry?)

I started gigging in '72. According to the Canadian inflation converter, a $100 gig in 1975 is equal to $453 today. Did not even get that for NYE the other night.

It gets worse ...a friend of mine was a young European 'star' in the '50s, he made more playing a Saturday night hotel gig than he did in his shipyard day job for a week's labor. That hotel also picked him and his band mates up in a Bentley. Fast forward 5 decades (back to the future Delorean time machine) he ended up happy just to get a paying gig, like the rest of us.

Damn.