I was recently given a bike by my parents for my birthday. I know that this makes me sound like I'm about 12, but hey ho, they knew that I'd been wanting one for a while and I hadn't got around to buying one. I'm actually really pleased with it.

By most standards, I probably live in one of the best places in the country for cycling (unless you're really into mountain biking or BMX or something else). I live within about a 2 minute ride of a route on the national cycle network and about 5 minutes from the national canal network, which from Bournville, not only goes to university (where I work), but also beyond to the city centre and ultimately the rest of the country.

The ride into university takes about 15 to 20 minutes, which is basically how long it had been taking me by train, given that I usually end up waiting about 5 minutes or so for one.

Now the decision of whether to ride or go by train now seems to me to be an easy decision. As an example of mechanism design, this is how I see it: Each day I get paid £1.80 (the train fare) to exercise for half an hour. It takes up no more time out of my day, and there's none of the expense (and in my opinion boredom) associated with going to a gym.

So, the picture above shows my new route to work. And, as if the benefits already were not enough, instead of being advertised at by the omnipresent telescreens on the train, I instead get to enjoy the drifting smell of chocolate being made at the Cadbury factory, and to watch the ducks and geese flapping and hissing at me as I ride past.

Now I'm just waiting for my first rainy day...

Occasionally, I receive emails from jobs.ac.uk about vacancies in which I might be interested. Usually I just skim through, since I'm not actively looking right now, to see what kinds of things I might want to do after my PhD, or else what I would really like to avoid. Today I saw an advert for a job about which I couldn't immediately decide what I thought: a Consequence Modeller for the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

The Atomic Weapons Establishment (from their website) "provides the warheads for the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent" and "is one of the largest high technology research, design development and production facilities in the country". Well, no wonder they're interested in science graduates. This is no NGO!

Being pretty much a pacifist, I normally steer well clear of any military research and I certainly would not in a million years want to design nuclear warheads, but what exactly does "consequence modelling" entail in this field? I mean, firstly is anyone under any illusion that the consequences of the detonation of a nuclear weapon would be anything other than massive, indiscriminate, ugly, painful death, mutilation and an environmental impact the like of which would probably change the culture of a country like Britain overnight?

I suppose what they are really after is the ability to be able to somehow justify nuclear weapons as "tactical", things which can be used for precision attacks, the consequences of which could be fine tuned by the selection of warhead. In this way, perhaps they hope that weapons can be used more "safely", in order to minimise civilian casualty, or some such rubbish.

And, I do believe that it is rubbish. We've heard this kind of talk before of course, about precision weapons, highly sophisticated targetting systems which minimise what is heartlessly referred to as "collateral damage". Indeed, this is very similar to the claim being made by the United States about their missile "defence" system: as soon as an incoming missile is detected, they send up one of their own (from a base in Europe) to intercept it and take it out before it reaches its target. Of course, the simple and very obvious problem with this approach is that the attackers just need a slightly more sophisticated missile. At this point of course, the US can just spend a bit more on missile defence research... And here we have it, another arms race.

Thinking about these precision targetted weapons we hear so much about these days, of whose consequences their users are so certain, well doesn't this just encourage the people who are being targetted to hole up in the middle of a town, or in a school? I firmly believe that there is no way to hope to bring about more peace in the world by researching better weapons, only by disarmament, and by not spending people's taxes on jobs like this.

Anyway, if you disagree, and have an "understanding of nuclear weapons' effects", their "consequences for persons" as well as "good computer literacy, particularly Microsoft Office applications", (the three do actually appear adjacent to each other in the ad) then feel free to apply and prove me wrong.

One of the things which you generally have to do when you move to a new area is to get a new doctor and dentist. I hadn't actually changed my dentist for quite a while, and had been making the trips back to Kingswinford to visit the guy whom I'd seen for my whole life - until recently he retired.

Having bought my house and settled in, I decided it was time to get some new local services. Of course, the gossip and news concerning the NHS over the last few months and years had led me to be somewhat doubtful about my chances of fulfilling this task successfully. The last time I went to the dentist I paid a fair amount of money for the privilege, as the entire practice had gone private. I have to admit that I am also rather confused about the way in which dentists are organised in this country these days. There's continual stuff in the news about there not being enough - a couple of years ago I remember seeing queues around the block on television in Scarborough when a new NHS dentist opened. My brother also recently told me that he'd been accepted at a new dentist - but only since his fiancee was already a patient there. Grim prospects for me.

So, somewhat doubtful, yesterday I called up my local practice, the Cadbury Dental Practice in Bournville. I told them that I'd recently moved into the area and was looking for a dentist. "No problem, just let me take some details", said the cheerful woman on the phone. She asked if I also wanted a check-up, and I said that I did, at which point she offered me a cancellation spot for this morning. I was registered as an NHS patient automatically, and told that the current charges meant that I just had to pay around £15 per trip. She helpfully explained the price banding system, which means that even major surgery only costs me just over £100. Granted, this is the NHS, and I do believe that it should be free at the point of delivery, but it's a far cry from the long queues, family-friend networks and high prices at my previous (now private) practice.

This morning, I turned up - and yes, it is actually inside the Cadbury factory, and thankfully all was well with my teeth. There really is something ironic about having a dentist inside a chocolate factory, but having chuckled at that, I'm now sorted.

Registration with a new doctor was just as simple. I just called in this morning (both doctor and dentist are within easy walking distance), told them I'd moved in to the area, and filled out a couple of forms. They've offered me a health check next week.

So, is this a bit of a fluke and not at all typical of the NHS today? Are the stories we hear about in the press largely unfounded? Well, I don't know what the statistics are, but the NHS gets a big thumbs up from where I'm standing.

I've walked past this pretty much every day for the last year. Though it looks like the people inside are waiting for a bus, this is in fact a smoking shelter at the local hospital.

I'm sure that smoking in a confined space such as this can't be the best thing for your health, but more importantly, why on earth is the NHS (and our taxes) paying for shiny new shelters to house its staff who choose to smoke?

I've heard it said that smoking actually helps the NHS financially, since the revenue raised from the sale of cigarettes is greater than the cost involved in treating smoking-related illness, but surely providing this shelter is taking it too far.

Furthermore, if despite its role as a health educator the NHS were to take a relaxed attitude to smoking, what I find most baffling about this is that it obviously takes a much more serious approach to the risk of getting wet. Do these shelters serve any purpose other than to prevent smokers from returning to work with wet hair? Perhaps the shelter serves as a communal space, which keeps the smokers away from the main entrance of the hospial where patients would have to learn that the doctor who'd just advised them to quit does himself smoke.

My walk to university takes me through the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, by all accounts a huge complex, bustling with people. I couldn't help but notice on these trips that the number of smokers with whom I share this route make up a significantly larger proportion of people than I have observed in the world at large (except perhaps in Quebec, but that's another story). The hospital really does seem to be inundated with smokers, staff and patients alike. Am I the only one who sees this as a little odd?

I think for all its failings, the NHS is a wonderful thing. Anyone can turn up at a doctor's or a hopital and receive treatment regardless of who they are or their financial circumstances. This is certainly an advantage when compared to the overcomplicated, expensive and socially divisive system which my girlfriend has to contend with in the United States.

But despite the open access approach we practice here in the UK, why do we insist on treating people for conditions which have been caused by wilfull damage of their own health? Surely that's taking the biscuit? We are a caring society, which takes responsibility for the healing of others, but doesn't the arrangement have to require a certain amount of intention from the individual too?

In a private healthcare system, this really doesn't matter. Since you pay a market rate to be treated, who cares what state your body's in? The hospital gets its money, you do what you like to yourself and then pay if you need more treatment - as long as you are able. I'm sure that the NHS shouldn't give this "luxury". The rationing which has always taken place in the NHS can often seem arbitrary, but isn't it time that it's tied to some sort of partnership arrangement?

This does sit awkwardly, though. What about the kayaker who breaks his arm, or even a guy who crosses a road and gets hit by a car? Surely these are also unneccessary risks.

So, perhaps the NHS can't impose these kinds of rations without there being a judgment about "accepted lifestyles", which takes us down a nasty road. But, by having the NHS in the first place - or indeed any community-wide agreed service - haven't we already done so?

In the meantime, the smokers can be hidden away from the main entrance in their shelter - probably a decision which made some middle manager quite chuffed with the coup. But the hospital can't ignore the fact that the message they're sending out loud and clear is "Smoke? Sure... but whatever you do, don't get wet!"