Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the attic,
while continental countries seem to get away without this?

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,
and appears to work just as well.

Is there some historical reason for the UK system, if I can call it that?

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,
as well as unduly complicated.
But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the
attic, while continental countries seem to get away without this?

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,
and appears to work just as well.

Is there some historical reason for the UK system, if I can call it
that?

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,
as well as unduly complicated.
But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

I can think of two advantages:
- you can still flush the bog many times, or make a cup of tea if the mains
is cut off for any reason.
- constant head of pressure; some properties have very low mains pressure.

--
LSR

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:51:01 +0000 someone who may be Timothy Murphy
wrote this:-

Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the attic,
while continental countries seem to get away without this?

We haven't discussed this for at least a month. Search engines will
pull up long discussions on the subject.

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,

If one ignores the various safety valves and other gadgets that are
involved.

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,

Someone who didn't know much about plumbing.

Provided it is installed and maintained properly a "UK" system is as
hygienic as a direct system. Both can become unhygienic in various
ways if this is not the case.

But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

A storage system allows for interruptions to the supply. One can
still flush the toilet and wash one's hands with hot and cold water
with the "UK" storage system. With a direct system one can flush the
toilet once and try and wash one's hands in water that happens to be
available.

A storage system means the pipes and fittings are at low pressure,
meaning less noise, stress and things like water hammer.

With a direct system fittings in bathrooms are more likely to form
condensation. Water from a storage system will be a little warmer so
this is less likely. Note that I said a little warmer, that is not
the same as being so hot all sorts of germs breed rapidly.

A storage system allows for variations in supply. At times of peak
demand the supply pressure and flow can go very low and people will
not notice much.

A direct system avoids storage tanks being installed in the loft or
at least high up. Plumbing is at a lower level.

A direct system avoids pumps for showers, though there are several
ways of avoiding this on a system which is predominately storage.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:51:01 +0000 someone who may be Timothy Murphy
wrote this:-

Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the
attic,
while continental countries seem to get away without this?

We haven't discussed this for at least a month. Search engines will
pull up long discussions on the subject.

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,

If one ignores the various safety valves and other gadgets that are
involved.

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,

Someone who didn't know much about plumbing.

Provided it is installed and maintained properly a "UK" system is as
hygienic as a direct system. Both can become unhygienic in various
ways if this is not the case.

But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

A storage system allows for interruptions to the supply. One can
still flush the toilet and wash one's hands with hot and cold water
with the "UK" storage system. With a direct system one can flush the
toilet once and try and wash one's hands in water that happens to be
available.

A storage system means the pipes and fittings are at low pressure,
meaning less noise, stress and things like water hammer.

With a direct system fittings in bathrooms are more likely to form
condensation. Water from a storage system will be a little warmer so
this is less likely. Note that I said a little warmer, that is not
the same as being so hot all sorts of germs breed rapidly.

A storage system allows for variations in supply. At times of peak
demand the supply pressure and flow can go very low and people will
not notice much.

A direct system avoids storage tanks being installed in the loft or
at least high up. Plumbing is at a lower level.

A direct system avoids pumps for showers, though there are several
ways of avoiding this on a system which is predominately storage.



Interesting answer but in my limited experience domestic installations use
stored water for hot water supply only the cold and hence toilet flush
being mains feed.

The man advantage of this being a good head of water for filling the bath or
running a shower and to compensate for low mains pressure when doing so

However in commercial installations storage for hot and cold is used and
direct supply for potable use only

I would not want to drink cold water from a stored supply especially where
something may have found its way into the tank and died

Tony

"TMC" wrote in message
...

I would not want to drink cold water from a stored supply

Better not come round here then - stored, and a plain untreated source at
that (not mains). Tastes great - better than any mains water I've tried.

especially where something may have found its way into the tank and died

That one's fairly easy to prevent.

clive

LSR wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the
attic, while continental countries seem to get away without this?

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,
and appears to work just as well.

Is there some historical reason for the UK system, if I can call it
that?

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,
as well as unduly complicated.
But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

I can think of two advantages:
- you can still flush the bog many times, or make a cup of tea if the mains
is cut off for any reason.
- constant head of pressure; some properties have very low mains pressure.

whiuch will alwatys exceed that from te tank, or it wouln't ever fill up.

The ONLY two reaosn for a header - well three maybe are

- the mains delivers insufficinet RATE of FLOW (NOT pressure)
- the mains is subject to long and freqeuent outages
- you have no mains at all. And e.g. pump from a borehole etc.

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:51:01 +0000 someone who may be Timothy Murphy
wrote this:-

Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the attic,
while continental countries seem to get away without this?

We haven't discussed this for at least a month. Search engines will
pull up long discussions on the subject.

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,

If one ignores the various safety valves and other gadgets that are
involved.

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,

Someone who didn't know much about plumbing.

Provided it is installed and maintained properly a "UK" system is as
hygienic as a direct system. Both can become unhygienic in various
ways if this is not the case.

But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

A storage system allows for interruptions to the supply. One can
still flush the toilet and wash one's hands with hot and cold water
with the "UK" storage system. With a direct system one can flush the
toilet once and try and wash one's hands in water that happens to be
available.

A storage system means the pipes and fittings are at low pressure,
meaning less noise, stress and things like water hammer.

And ergo bigger and more expensive pipes or pumps needed to get the flow
rates to a satisfactory level.

With a direct system fittings in bathrooms are more likely to form
condensation. Water from a storage system will be a little warmer so
this is less likely. Note that I said a little warmer, that is not
the same as being so hot all sorts of germs breed rapidly.


This is ********. Warmer in summer, colder in winter.


A storage system allows for variations in supply. At times of peak
demand the supply pressure and flow can go very low and people will
not notice much.

A direct system avoids storage tanks being installed in the loft or
at least high up. Plumbing is at a lower level.

A direct system avoids pumps for showers, though there are several
ways of avoiding this on a system which is predominately storage.

In article ,
TMC wrote:
I would not want to drink cold water from a stored supply especially
where something may have found its way into the tank and died

And where do you think mains water comes from?

Your statement is rather like saying you'd not drink milk that came from a
cow...

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TMC wrote:
I would not want to drink cold water from a stored supply especially
where something may have found its way into the tank and died

And where do you think mains water comes from?

Your statement is rather like saying you'd not drink milk that came from a
cow...

I always thought that mains water was treated in some way and then sent
through sealed pipes to my tap

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out. I also
know that there is no treatment of the water after it leaves the tanks

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I would
want pasteurised milk from the dairy

In case you are not aware

Pasteurization (or pasteurisation) is the process of heating liquids for the
purpose of destroying viruses and harmful organisms such as bacteria,
protozoa, molds, and yeasts. The process was named after its inventor,
French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur. The first pasteurisation
test was completed by Pasteur and Claude Bernard on April 20, 1862.

Tony

"TMC" wrote in message
...
....
I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out. ...

In which case they do not meet the requirements of Water Byelaw 30 or of
Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the The Water Supply (Water Fittings)
Regulations 1999, which replaced it. Any cisterns installed since the Water
Byelaws were introduced should have a close-fiiting lid that excludes light
and insects, with insect screens in any air vents, warning pipes and
overflows. While there is no statutory requirement to bring older cisterns
up to those standards, most Local Authorities and NHS Trusts are doing so as
a result of risk assessments, which is good news for me, as I make and sell
the insect screens.

Colin Bignell

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:51:01 +0000 someone who may be Timothy Murphy
wrote this:-

Why do houses in the UK (and Ireland) usually have a cold tank in the
attic,
while continental countries seem to get away without this?

We haven't discussed this for at least a month. Search engines will
pull up long discussions on the subject.

On the face of it, the tank-less system seems much simpler,

If one ignores the various safety valves and other gadgets that are
involved.

Someone suggested to me that the UK system is unhygienic,

Someone who didn't know much about plumbing.

Provided it is installed and maintained properly a "UK" system is as
hygienic as a direct system. Both can become unhygienic in various
ways if this is not the case.

But I'm sure our ancestors had good reason for what they did.

A storage system allows for interruptions to the supply. One can
still flush the toilet and wash one's hands with hot and cold water
with the "UK" storage system. With a direct system one can flush the
toilet once and try and wash one's hands in water that happens to be
available.

A storage system means the pipes and fittings are at low pressure,
meaning less noise, stress and things like water hammer.

With a direct system fittings in bathrooms are more likely to form
condensation. Water from a storage system will be a little warmer so
this is less likely. Note that I said a little warmer, that is not
the same as being so hot all sorts of germs breed rapidly.

A storage system allows for variations in supply. At times of peak
demand the supply pressure and flow can go very low and people will
not notice much.

A direct system avoids storage tanks being installed in the loft or
at least high up. Plumbing is at a lower level.

A direct system avoids pumps for showers, though there are several
ways of avoiding this on a system which is predominately storage.

A cold water accumulator is generally the better option than a tank in the
attic.

On 20 Feb, 17:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The ONLY two reaosn for a header - well three maybe are

- the mains delivers insufficinet RATE of FLOW (NOT pressure)

Pressure and rate of flow are almost always related.

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 20 Feb, 17:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The ONLY two reaosn for a header - well three maybe are

- the mains delivers insufficinet RATE of FLOW (NOT pressure)

Pressure and rate of flow are almost always related.


Not at all.

If you have a blocked pipe, flow will be nil irrepective of pressure.

If you have a river, flow will be vast at almost no pressure at all.



Ian

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 20 Feb, 17:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The ONLY two reaosn for a header - well three maybe are

- the mains delivers insufficinet RATE of FLOW (NOT pressure)

Pressure and rate of flow are almost always related.


Not at all.

If you have a blocked pipe, flow will be nil irrepective of pressure.

If you have a river, flow will be vast at almost no pressure at all.


No. Flow (assuming there is some, granted) is always (approximately)
proportional to pressure, the exact relationship depending on the resistance
of the transport medium (and the viscosity of the fluid).

The *hydrostatic* pressure (when there is no flow) will be unaffected by the
pipes etc.

The mains may deliver insufficient pressure (to fill a header tank at all in
extreme circumstances, but often insufficient to run a combi boiler shower)
OR insufficient flow (either due to the external pipes or internal pipes).
You could, of course, claim that insufficient flow is because the pressure
is too low but there are "normal" ragnges for mains pressure. Most
reasonable people would say a mains pressure way below the normal would
count as insufficient pressure (even if the symptom is poor flow) and one
where the hydrostatic pressure was high (you can't seal the cold tap with
your thumb for example) but which failed deliver adequate quantities of
water, had a flow rate problem. The two are never not intimitely connected
though!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Bob Mannix wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 20 Feb, 17:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The ONLY two reaosn for a header - well three maybe are

- the mains delivers insufficinet RATE of FLOW (NOT pressure)
Pressure and rate of flow are almost always related.

Not at all.

If you have a blocked pipe, flow will be nil irrepective of pressure.

If you have a river, flow will be vast at almost no pressure at all.


No. Flow (assuming there is some, granted) is always (approximately)
proportional to pressure, the exact relationship depending on the resistance
of the transport medium (and the viscosity of the fluid).


Its also exactly as proportional to viscosity, pipe cross sectional area
and length, so why not say.


"YES flow is always proportional to pipe length and cross sectional area"




The *hydrostatic* pressure (when there is no flow) will be unaffected by the
pipes etc.

I said as much.


The mains may deliver insufficient pressure (to fill a header tank at all in
extreme circumstances, but often insufficient to run a combi boiler shower)

If it has enouh pressure to fill a header tank, ipso facto it has enough
*pressure* to run a shower. Ife run swers off header tanks. Not great,
but they work. It may not be able to sustain a decent *rate* though.
However unless its severely limited upstream in te mains that is most
likely to be inadequate post stopcock plumbing, which is addressable.

I challenge you to find even one area where there is insufficient mans
PRESSURE or for that matter flow, to run a decent shower, if fed
directly from the mains via reasonable bore sizes.


Thats sort of low state would be almost automatic cause for a water
company refund, as its simply not fit for purpose.



OR insufficient flow (either due to the external pipes or internal pipes).
You could, of course, claim that insufficient flow is because the pressure
is too low but there are "normal" ragnges for mains pressure. Most
reasonable people would say a mains pressure way below the normal would
count as insufficient pressure (even if the symptom is poor flow) and one
where the hydrostatic pressure was high (you can't seal the cold tap with
your thumb for example) but which failed deliver adequate quantities of
water, had a flow rate problem. The two are never not intimitely connected
though!


Precisely. However anything above about 0.5 bar static is probably
enough for a decent shower, and is what you need to get water into a
header tank in a three storey building.

I very much dowubt that mains pressures less than that are acceptable
anyway. Likewise fklow artes to a single property that cant fill a
header tank in a couple of minutes. Whih are ALSO enough for a shower.

The only argument I can see that has any validity is that of supply
reliability: You may JUST be happier with a tank of cold water that you
can rely on for two bog flushes and a couple of quick washes.

On 21 Feb, 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:

Pressure and rate of flow are almost always related.

Not at all.

If you have a blocked pipe, flow will be nil irrepective of pressure.

Coo yes, who'd a thunk it. Blocking the pipe reduces the flow and
increases the pressure. Unblocking the pipe increases the flow and
decreases the pressure. It's almost as if, in some spooky way, the
flow and the pressure were related.

If you have a river, flow will be vast at almost no pressure at all.

And if you dam the river the flow reduces and - whadja know - the
pressure increases. Amazing!

Ian

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 20 Feb, 17:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The ONLY two reaosn for a header - well three maybe are

- the mains delivers insufficinet RATE of FLOW (NOT pressure)
Pressure and rate of flow are almost always related.

Not at all.

If you have a blocked pipe, flow will be nil irrepective of pressure.

If you have a river, flow will be vast at almost no pressure at all.


No. Flow (assuming there is some, granted) is always (approximately)
proportional to pressure, the exact relationship depending on the
resistance of the transport medium (and the viscosity of the fluid).


Its also exactly as proportional to viscosity, pipe cross sectional area
and length, so why not say.


"YES flow is always proportional to pipe length and cross sectional area"

Because it is driven by, and depends on, the pressure. To correct your
statement:

"At a given pressure, flow is always proportional to pipe length and cross
sectional area"




The *hydrostatic* pressure (when there is no flow) will be unaffected by
the pipes etc.

I said as much.

I didn't say you didn't, I was merely restating the more limited case.


The mains may deliver insufficient pressure (to fill a header tank at all
in extreme circumstances, but often insufficient to run a combi boiler
shower)

If it has enouh pressure to fill a header tank, ipso facto it has enough
*pressure* to run a shower. Ife run swers off header tanks. Not great, but
they work. It may not be able to sustain a decent *rate* though. However
unless its severely limited upstream in te mains that is most likely to
be inadequate post stopcock plumbing, which is addressable.

I challenge you to find even one area where there is insufficient mans
PRESSURE or for that matter flow, to run a decent shower, if fed directly
from the mains via reasonable bore sizes.

My comment referred to combi boilers showers where there are many instances
of where they cannot be installed as the mains pressure is too low -
clearly, with a tank system, the crap shower you may get from the mains
can't be worse than the crap shower you get from the tank, if the tank is
still filling. The reason, in these cases, that the rate is low is because
there is inadequate presssure. The generally accepted minimum pressure water
companies are required to provide is about 1bar. Historically they have been
providing 1.5 to 2 bar to overcome such problems. Now that the government is
taking action to force water companies to reduce leakage, they have realised
that targets can be met by reducing all supplies to the minimum where
possible and this lowering of the pressure is causing problems (for some
people at the end of pipes, three storey buildings etc).

If you look on combi boiler sites they will say don't have one if your mains
pressure is low.


Thats sort of low state would be almost automatic cause for a water
company refund, as its simply not fit for purpose.


Indeed, such arguments are already in place.



OR insufficient flow (either due to the external pipes or internal
pipes). You could, of course, claim that insufficient flow is because the
pressure is too low but there are "normal" ragnges for mains pressure.
Most reasonable people would say a mains pressure way below the normal
would count as insufficient pressure (even if the symptom is poor flow)
and one where the hydrostatic pressure was high (you can't seal the cold
tap with your thumb for example) but which failed deliver adequate
quantities of water, had a flow rate problem. The two are never not
intimitely connected though!


Precisely. However anything above about 0.5 bar static is probably enough
for a decent shower, and is what you need to get water into a header tank
in a three storey building.

Well 0.5 bar would be trickling 16feet up so a bit light I would say! 1.0bar
maybe


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article ,
David Hansen writes:

A storage system allows for interruptions to the supply. One can
still flush the toilet and wash one's hands with hot and cold water
with the "UK" storage system. With a direct system one can flush the
toilet once and try and wash one's hands in water that happens to be
available.

This is particularly important in business premises, where
you have to send everyone home when the toilets stop working.
Depending on your business and numbers of staff, you could
rack up millions in losses due to a simple water supply failure
otherwise. There have been a few cases where this has been
overlooked in premises where millions of £'s have been spent
on emergency electricity supplies to enable critical business
activities to continue during a power cut, only to find the
building has to be closed because the toilets stopped flushing
when a water main burst.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Feb 20, 8:09*pm, "TMC" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in ...

In article ,
* TMC wrote:
I would not want to drink cold water from a stored supply especially
where something may have found its way into the tank and died

And where do you think mains water comes from?

Your statement is rather like saying you'd not drink milk that came from a
cow...

I always thought that mains water was treated in some way and then sent
through sealed pipes to my tap

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out. I also
know that there is no treatment of the water after it leaves the tanks

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I would
want pasteurised milk from the dairy

Why? Unpasteurized never did me any harm, nor a childhood of drinking
from the bathroom tap that was supplied from a lead tank through lead
pipes.

snip condescending dribble

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:09:49 -0000 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out.

And I know that there are/were no dead pigeons in the storage of any
houses I have looked after.

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I would
want pasteurised milk from the dairy

That is another low risk thing which those who wish to regulate
every aspect of life have been having a go at.

In case you are not aware

I suspect that most readers of this group are aware of what
pasteurisation is and who it was named after.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:09:49 -0000 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out.

And I know that there are/were no dead pigeons in the storage of any
houses I have looked after.

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I would
want pasteurised milk from the dairy

That is another low risk thing which those who wish to regulate
every aspect of life have been having a go at.

In case you are not aware

I suspect that most readers of this group are aware of what
pasteurisation is and who it was named after.


But are they aware of how MUCH a killer TB was before we had vaccines
and antibiotics for it?

It was teh Victorian equivalent of AIDS

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:09:49 -0000 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings
some times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them
out.

And I know that there are/were no dead pigeons in the storage of any
houses I have looked after.

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I
would want pasteurised milk from the dairy

That is another low risk thing which those who wish to regulate
every aspect of life have been having a go at.

In case you are not aware

I suspect that most readers of this group are aware of what
pasteurisation is and who it was named after.


But are they aware of how MUCH a killer TB was before we had vaccines
and antibiotics for it?

It was teh Victorian equivalent of AIDS

TNP,

Absolutely. We seem to think of TB as a lung problem. But it was
actually much more than that...

"Thomas Addison first identified the disease [later named Addison's
Disease] in 1855 while working at Guy’s Hospital in London. At that
time, the main cause of the disease was as a complication of
tuberculosis. TB still remains an important cause of Addison’s in Third
World countries. HIV (AIDS) is now becoming another significant
infectious disease causing adrenal failure among third world population."
http://www.addisons.org.uk/info/addisons/page1.html

--
Rod

In article ,
TMC wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
TMC wrote:
I would not want to drink cold water from a stored supply especially
where something may have found its way into the tank and died

And where do you think mains water comes from?

Your statement is rather like saying you'd not drink milk that came
from a cow...

I always thought that mains water was treated in some way and then sent
through sealed pipes to my tap

Then that treated water is stored in your local tank. Which should be
covered to prevent foreign objects entering it - most have for many a
year.

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out. I
also know that there is no treatment of the water after it leaves the
tanks

Why weren't they properly covered? It's hardly difficult to prevent
pigeons entering a tank. And the area it's housed in, come to that.

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I
would want pasteurised milk from the dairy

In case you are not aware

Pasteurization (or pasteurisation) is the process of heating liquids for
the purpose of destroying viruses and harmful organisms such as
bacteria, protozoa, molds, and yeasts. The process was named after its
inventor, French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur. The first
pasteurisation test was completed by Pasteur and Claude Bernard on
April 20, 1862.

Not needed with fresh milk from a healthy cow - and it spoils the taste.

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:09:49 -0000 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

I know that storage tanks in schools and other commercial buildings some
times contain dead pigeons as I have had the job of getting them out.

And I know that there are/were no dead pigeons in the storage of any
houses I have looked after.

As regards the cow I would not drink the milk straight from the cow I
would want pasteurised milk from the dairy

That is another low risk thing which those who wish to regulate
every aspect of life have been having a go at.

In case you are not aware

I suspect that most readers of this group are aware of what
pasteurisation is and who it was named after.


But are they aware of how MUCH a killer TB was before we had vaccines and
antibiotics for it?

It was teh Victorian equivalent of AIDS

It is still remarkably dangerous and is what actually kills about one AIDS
victim in three world-wide.

Colin Bignell

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

I challenge you to find even one area where there is insufficient mans
PRESSURE or for that matter flow, to run a decent shower, if fed
directly from the mains via reasonable bore sizes.

Variable mains water pressure/flow is quite common here, on my supply.
I'd hate to have a mains pressure shower on the bad days, so that's why
I didn't fit one.

The normal mains pressure is very good, but when there's a slight break
in the line somewhere, the pressure drops to almost sod all for a day or
two until it's fixed.
--

Dave