http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...nsultation.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

"cynic" wrote in message
...
http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...nsultation.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

Which bits are particularly objectionable to you?

OG wrote:


"cynic" wrote in message
...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...nsultation.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

Which bits are particularly objectionable to you?

Well for one thing there'll be an increase in the number of people getting
scalded as they try to top up the temperature of their bath with boiling
water from a kettle because the hot tap will only be able to deliver a
pathetic 48C

Yet another example of the government pushing new measures through on the
quiet. These proposals affect everyone yet they've given this virtually no
publicity. I expect they've circulated copies of the "consultation
Document" to lots of interested parties who stand to gain by increased
sales of their products and services so they can claim overwhelming support
for their proposals.

--
Mike Clarke

"Huge" wrote in message
...
snip

I'm amused by the "Printed on 75% recycled paper" legend on P2. In a
PDF?


Huge obviously know little about commercial printing...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

In article
s.com, cynic scribeth thus
http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...rtgconsultatio
n.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

Nope... gives them something to do to keep them occupied and employed
just like that mob in the house of commons...
--
Tony Sayer

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
et...
snip

Well for one thing there'll be an increase in the number of people
getting
scalded as they try to top up the temperature of their bath with
boiling
water from a kettle because the hot tap will only be able to deliver
a
pathetic 48C


Are they proposing to specify these thermostatic taps for the wash
basin also then?
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

In article
,
cynic wrote:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...nsultation.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

You might summarise the bits you object to as many won't have time to wade
through a doc. this size.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

Jerry wrote:

Are they proposing to specify these thermostatic taps for the wash
basin also then?

No.

So there's another danger. Someone rigs up a length of hose from the basin
to the bath. They stand up in the bath and lean over to the washbasin to
add more hot water, lose their balance and slip due to not much friction
between feet and bath, knock themselves unconscious and drown in the bath.

--
Mike Clarke

In article ,
Mike Clarke writes:
OG wrote:


"cynic" wrote in message
...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...nsultation.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

Which bits are particularly objectionable to you?

Well for one thing there'll be an increase in the number of people getting
scalded as they try to top up the temperature of their bath with boiling
water from a kettle because the hot tap will only be able to deliver a
pathetic 48C

I only skimmed through the first few pages and may have misread it,
but I thought it said this measure was not being introduced because
the cost to risk analysis wasn't favourable.

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

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...

snip
to add more hot water, lose their balance and slip due to not much
friction
between feet and bath, knock themselves unconscious and drown in the
bath.


Oh come on they could slip just getting into a bath and do that, which
is probably far more likely if they try getting into 'scalding' (over
hot) water...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I only skimmed through the first few pages and may have misread it,
but I thought it said this measure was not being introduced because
the cost to risk analysis wasn't favourable.

Yes, I missed that bit among the 107 pages. On page 6 we have:

"1.11 The Government would very much like to support a provision that would
help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary appliances.
However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of requiring the
installation of TMVs are considerably out of proportion to the benefits
that would be realised, even if we were to only limit the provision to
baths in new homes. Unfortunately, this means that it is not currently
possible for us to include this provision as a definitive proposal in this
document. However, through this consultation we are seeking more
information and evidence from our stakeholders on the likely costs and
benefits of installing protective measures such as TMVs. If this
information and evidence changes the analysis of costs and benefits
favourably we will reconsider the position in formulating our final
policy."

But the underlying theme looks like they want to introduce it if they can
find a justification for doing so. I wonder who they regard as
their "stakeholders"? I'm sure all the commercial bodies with a vested
interest will try to provide them with convincing arguments in favour and
the government won't make much effort to publicise the matter to the
general public who would also be concerned in the practical applications of
the proposal.Apparently it's already introduced in Scotland so I suppose
it's just a matter of time.

--
Mike Clarke

Mike Clarke wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I only skimmed through the first few pages and may have misread it,
but I thought it said this measure was not being introduced because
the cost to risk analysis wasn't favourable.

Yes, I missed that bit among the 107 pages. On page 6 we have:

"1.11 The Government would very much like to support a provision that would
help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary appliances.
However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of requiring the
installation of TMVs are considerably out of proportion to the benefits
that would be realised, even if we were to only limit the provision to
baths in new homes. Unfortunately, this means that it is not currently
possible for us to include this provision as a definitive proposal in this
document. However, through this consultation we are seeking more
information and evidence from our stakeholders on the likely costs and
benefits of installing protective measures such as TMVs. If this
information and evidence changes the analysis of costs and benefits
favourably we will reconsider the position in formulating our final
policy."

But the underlying theme looks like they want to introduce it if they can
find a justification for doing so. I wonder who they regard as
their "stakeholders"? I'm sure all the commercial bodies with a vested
interest will try to provide them with convincing arguments in favour and
the government won't make much effort to publicise the matter to the
general public who would also be concerned in the practical applications of
the proposal.Apparently it's already introduced in Scotland so I suppose
it's just a matter of time.


I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving this.

On 16 Aug, 10:21, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
* *cynic wrote:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...ding/pdf/partg...
This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

You might summarise the bits you object to as many won't have time to wade
through a doc. this size.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

Where do I begin?

Don't put any faith in the con arguments - this government loves
placing more restrictions on the public

Yet another "approved persons scheme" in the offing

another reason for the jobsworths to enter your property to inspect
for compliance

Unneccessary expense of adding thermostatic mixing valves when the non-
darwinnian failure section of the population manages perfectly
satisfactorily

Legionella growth in the outlet branch

If we simply roll over and play possum these proposals will be in
place before you know it. Part P was a non starter to anyone with a
brain but its here now and likely to stay here.

On 16 Aug, 12:04, stuart noble wrote:
Mike Clarke wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I only skimmed through the first few pages and may have misread it,
but I thought it said this measure was not being introduced because
the cost to risk analysis wasn't favourable.

Yes, I missed that bit among the 107 pages. On page 6 we have:

"1.11 The Government would very much like to support a provision that would
help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary appliances.
However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of requiring the
installation of TMVs are considerably out of proportion to the benefits
that would be realised, even if we were to only limit the provision to
baths in new homes. Unfortunately, this means that it is not currently
possible for us to include this provision as a definitive proposal in this
document. However, through this consultation we are seeking more
information and evidence from our stakeholders on the likely costs and
benefits of installing protective measures such as TMVs. If this
information and evidence changes the analysis of costs and benefits
favourably we will reconsider the position in formulating our final
policy."

But the underlying theme looks like they want to introduce it if they can
find a justification for doing so. I wonder who they regard as
their "stakeholders"? I'm sure all the commercial bodies with a vested
interest will try to provide them with convincing arguments in favour and
the government won't make much effort to publicise the matter to the
general public who would also be concerned in the practical applications of
the proposal.Apparently it's already introduced in Scotland so I suppose
it's just a matter of time.

I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the statistics are as well massaged as those used to support part P
we're doomed, doomed I tell you!

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
saying something like:

In article
,
cynic wrote:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...nsultation.pdf

This bloody government can't let it lie can they?

You might summarise the bits you object to as many won't have time to wade
through a doc. this size.

I noticed there is continual mention of 'Self-certification', which
makes me wonder if there's a move behind the scenes to have plumbing
controlled in a watery version of Part P. I'd not be surprised if the
Instute of Plumbing or some other body is wangling to become the issuing
body for official certs of competence for pipe-benders.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:

Are they proposing to specify these thermostatic taps for the wash
basin also then?

No.

So there's another danger. Someone rigs up a length of hose from the basin
to the bath. They stand up in the bath and lean over to the washbasin to
add more hot water, lose their balance and slip due to not much friction
between feet and bath, knock themselves unconscious and drown in the bath.

I solved that problem.. I put a 43C mixer immediately after the combi..
there are no *hot* water outlets and only a tefal one cup to heat water.

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon writes:

I noticed there is continual mention of 'Self-certification', which
makes me wonder if there's a move behind the scenes to have plumbing
controlled in a watery version of Part P. I'd not be surprised if the
Instute of Plumbing or some other body is wangling to become the issuing
body for official certs of competence for pipe-benders.

They already went down this path and had a compitent persons
scheme set up. No one joined it. Government had to abandon it.

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

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:09:39 +0100 Mike Clarke wrote :
Well for one thing there'll be an increase in the number of people
getting scalded as they try to top up the temperature of their bath
with boiling water from a kettle because the hot tap will only be
able to deliver a pathetic 48C

I'd like to see you jump into a bath at a pathetic 48C

Yet another example of the government pushing new measures through
on the quiet.

Pushing through on the quiet? The proposal was presented in detail at a
conference I was at 18 months or so ago and the paper itself says:

"The Government would very much like to support a provision that would
help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary appliances.
However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of requiring the
installation of TMVs are considerably out of proportion to the benefits
that would be realised, even if we were to only limit the provision to
baths in new homes."

FWIW I've got one of these TMVs on the basin in my loo: very handy to be
just able to rinse your hands under running hot water with no risk of it
being too hot.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Tony Bryer wrote:


I'd like to see you jump into a bath at a pathetic 48C

Problem is though that if the water coming out of the tap is only at 48C it
will be decidely *cool* by the time it's heated up a cast iron bath. Besides
which, if you have a long soak and want to re-vitalise the water, topping up
with 48C water ain't going to do much!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

stuart noble wrote:
Mike Clarke wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I only skimmed through the first few pages and may have misread it,
but I thought it said this measure was not being introduced because
the cost to risk analysis wasn't favourable.

Yes, I missed that bit among the 107 pages. On page 6 we have:

"1.11 The Government would very much like to support a provision that
would
help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary appliances.
However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of requiring the
installation of TMVs are considerably out of proportion to the benefits
that would be realised, even if we were to only limit the provision to
baths in new homes. Unfortunately, this means that it is not currently
possible for us to include this provision as a definitive proposal in
this
document. However, through this consultation we are seeking more
information and evidence from our stakeholders on the likely costs and
benefits of installing protective measures such as TMVs. If this
information and evidence changes the analysis of costs and benefits
favourably we will reconsider the position in formulating our final
policy."

But the underlying theme looks like they want to introduce it if they can
find a justification for doing so. I wonder who they regard as
their "stakeholders"? I'm sure all the commercial bodies with a vested
interest will try to provide them with convincing arguments in favour and
the government won't make much effort to publicise the matter to the
general public who would also be concerned in the practical
applications of
the proposal.Apparently it's already introduced in Scotland so I suppose
it's just a matter of time.


I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving this.


I very much dout it.

Its some bloody civil servant trying to make a job for himself by
inventing a need where none exists.

If there is one thing the Nu Laber assholes are good at, its takinga
perfactly reasnable ambition - like making things a bit safer, and
ignoring all difficuts sums and any cost/rsik/benefutr analysis, and
driving through PC legislation on a whim.

Which in the end does nothing except leep a lot of inspectors busy
inspecting.

If they were to ban shoes that give you ingrowing toenails, it would be
more productive.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:09:39 +0100 Mike Clarke wrote :
Well for one thing there'll be an increase in the number of people
getting scalded as they try to top up the temperature of their bath
with boiling water from a kettle because the hot tap will only be
able to deliver a pathetic 48C

I'd like to see you jump into a bath at a pathetic 48C

What? I like my baths to be as ht as I can stand them. I'd say 48C is
well within limirs.

AND if the water isn't hot enough, you have to waste a **** load of it
running it till it is, and if you happen to have a cast iron bath, it
never will be, either.



Yet another example of the government pushing new measures through
on the quiet.

Pushing through on the quiet? The proposal was presented in detail at a
conference I was at 18 months or so ago and the paper itself says:

"The Government would very much like to support a provision that would
help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary appliances.
However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of requiring the
installation of TMVs are considerably out of proportion to the benefits
that would be realised, even if we were to only limit the provision to
baths in new homes."


Just how many scalding incidenets are there from sanitary appliances?

FAR less than from cookers or kettles.

The next thing will be kettles that trip at 48C and never make a decent
cup of coffee...

FWIW I've got one of these TMVs on the basin in my loo: very handy to be
just able to rinse your hands under running hot water with no risk of it
being too hot.

That your choice. It ain't mine. water comes out of my taps at a sterile
65C plus. I have learnt NOT to get scalded by hot water.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Tony Bryer wrote:


I'd like to see you jump into a bath at a pathetic 48C

Problem is though that if the water coming out of the tap is only at
48C it will be decidely *cool* by the time it's heated up a cast
iron bath. Besides which, if you have a long soak and want to
re-vitalise the water, topping up with 48C water ain't going to do
much!

Do straw men normally have baths, I thought most just showered with
rain water?...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
stuart noble wrote:
snip

I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving
this.


I very much dout it.

I very much suspect so, I also suspect that you have not bothered to
follow the various questions and debates that have occoured in
Parliament on this issue - it has been the evidence from A&E
departments (in the form of admittance records IIRC) etc. that has
brought the issue to the fore.


Its some bloody civil servant trying to make a job for himself by
inventing a need where none exists.
snip the rest of your ignorant rant

More like people not wanting to see more kids and confused elderly
being admitted to hospital with severe - didn't Princess Margaret
suffer such an injury about 18 months before she died?
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Jerry wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Tony Bryer wrote:


I'd like to see you jump into a bath at a pathetic 48C

Problem is though that if the water coming out of the tap is only at
48C it will be decidely *cool* by the time it's heated up a cast
iron bath. Besides which, if you have a long soak and want to
re-vitalise the water, topping up with 48C water ain't going to do
much!

Do straw men normally have baths, I thought most just showered with
rain water?...

No idea! But my wife certainly has baths - and is often in the tub for a
long soak, requiring a top up!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:00 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
stuart noble wrote:
snip

I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving
this.


I very much dout it.

I very much suspect so, I also suspect that you have not bothered to
follow the various questions and debates that have occoured in
Parliament on this issue - it has been the evidence from A&E
departments (in the form of admittance records IIRC) etc. that has
brought the issue to the fore.


Well I have, the significant problem is amongst vulnerable people
(mostly institutionalised elderly) only.


Its some bloody civil servant trying to make a job for himself by
inventing a need where none exists.
snip the rest of your ignorant rant

&UPU2


More like people not wanting to see more kids

Kids don't come into it. They'd leap out of a scalding bath.

Portable baby baths used to be filled by kettles when we had babies.

and confused elderly
being admitted to hospital with severe - didn't Princess Margaret
suffer such an injury about 18 months before she died?

She did indeed. AIUI she had a habit which made her vulnerable.

In the same vein I also personally know of a bloke who came back from
the pub with the munchies, put the chip pan on and fell asleep in his
chair. He was killed when the whole house caught fire

Does this mean all chip pans must be built, certified, stamped and
inspected annually to be safe used by ****ants?

Derek

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:09:39 +0100 Mike Clarke wrote :
Well for one thing there'll be an increase in the number of people
getting scalded as they try to top up the temperature of their bath
with boiling water from a kettle because the hot tap will only be
able to deliver a pathetic 48C

I'd like to see you jump into a bath at a pathetic 48C

What? I like my baths to be as ht as I can stand them. I'd say 48C is
well within limirs.

AND if the water isn't hot enough, you have to waste a **** load of it
running it till it is, and if you happen to have a cast iron bath, it
never will be, either.



Yet another example of the government pushing new measures through
on the quiet.

Pushing through on the quiet? The proposal was presented in detail
at a conference I was at 18 months or so ago and the paper itself
says: "The Government would very much like to support a provision that
would help to reduce the risk of scalding incidents from sanitary
appliances. However, our initial analysis suggests that the cost of
requiring the installation of TMVs are considerably out of
proportion to the benefits that would be realised, even if we were
to only limit the provision to baths in new homes."


Just how many scalding incidenets are there from sanitary appliances?

FAR less than from cookers or kettles.

The next thing will be kettles that trip at 48C and never make a
decent cup of coffee...

FWIW I've got one of these TMVs on the basin in my loo: very handy
to be just able to rinse your hands under running hot water with no
risk of it being too hot.

That your choice. It ain't mine. water comes out of my taps at a
sterile 65C plus. I have learnt NOT to get scalded by hot water.

Ah. That would be 'common sense' shortly to be banned under the 'European
Anti Common Sense Directive 2009'.

Shame upon you for thinking for yourself - also shortly subject to a ban -
if its not banned already.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:00 +0100, "Jerry"

wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .
stuart noble wrote:
snip

I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving
this.


I very much dout it.

I very much suspect so, I also suspect that you have not bothered to
follow the various questions and debates that have occoured in
Parliament on this issue - it has been the evidence from A&E
departments (in the form of admittance records IIRC) etc. that has
brought the issue to the fore.


Well I have, the significant problem is amongst vulnerable people
(mostly institutionalised elderly) only.


....and those who are trying to carry on in their own home because of
Thatcheright/NU-Labour policies...



Its some bloody civil servant trying to make a job for himself by
inventing a need where none exists.
snip the rest of your ignorant rant

&UPU2


More like people not wanting to see more kids

Kids don't come into it. They'd leap out of a scalding bath.

Yep, only trouble is, they would by then have been scalded - Duh...


Portable baby baths used to be filled by kettles when we had babies.

Yes, and no doubt many babies were scalded, that is no reason to carry
on allowing it to happen!


and confused elderly
being admitted to hospital with severe - didn't Princess Margaret
suffer such an injury about 18 months before she died?

She did indeed. AIUI she had a habit which made her vulnerable.

Your point is what, and how many 15 - 40 plus also have 'habits' that
make them vulnerable to this sort of accident?...


In the same vein I also personally know of a bloke who came back
from
the pub with the munchies, put the chip pan on and fell asleep in
his
chair. He was killed when the whole house caught fire

Does this mean all chip pans must be built, certified, stamped and
inspected annually to be safe used by ****ants?


But it might mean banning 'hob-heated' chip pans, it would not stop
people making chip, using thermostatically controlled pans that can't
(in normal circumstances) over heat.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message m...
snip

Ah. That would be 'common sense' snip

Nice if you are old enough and well enough to have some....

Shame upon you for thinking for yourselfsnip

Nice if you are old enough and well enough to do so....
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:03:59 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:


Well I have, the significant problem is amongst vulnerable people
(mostly institutionalised elderly) only.


...and those who are trying to carry on in their own home because of
Thatcheright/NU-Labour policies...


Well if you've read my other posts you would have realised we have had
to cope with our share of those (3 of our parents died of chronic
cancers / dementias) looking after them was catastrophic for our (next
younger) generation of the family, I was running a one-man business
with customers from Devon to Aberdeen and my income was indeed
"decimated".

But sure as hell I wouldn't have wanted any of them put away in Friern
Barnet or any like institution, and every city had at least one. :-((

YMMV



Its some bloody civil servant trying to make a job for himself by
inventing a need where none exists.
snip the rest of your ignorant rant

&UPU2


More like people not wanting to see more kids

Kids don't come into it. They'd leap out of a scalding bath.

Yep, only trouble is, they would by then have been scalded - Duh...


Duh ... So they've first degree burns to half a foot. They'll live &
learn. If they don't they'll do it again "Da Capo".

The serious risk is for old or otherwise vulnerable folks with poor
circulation and little sensation in their extremities dumping
themselves in a bath of scalding hot water and then not being able to
get out.

As regards normal kids I've seen nothing to indicate there is any risk
whatsoever of serious injury.

Portable baby baths used to be filled by kettles when we had babies.

Yes, and no doubt many babies were scalded, that is no reason to carry
on allowing it to happen!

But it still goes on that way.You have brought up babies I take it ?




and confused elderly
being admitted to hospital with severe - didn't Princess Margaret
suffer such an injury about 18 months before she died?

She did indeed. AIUI she had a habit which made her vulnerable.

Your point is what, and how many 15 - 40 plus also have 'habits' that
make them vulnerable to this sort of accident?...

Firstly it was you that raised Princess Margaret issue, secondly her
age plus her lifestyle put her at risk far in excess of normal (if you
are vainly hoping that we use her as an example).



In the same vein I also personally know of a bloke who came back
from
the pub with the munchies, put the chip pan on and fell asleep in
his
chair. He was killed when the whole house caught fire

Does this mean all chip pans must be built, certified, stamped and
inspected annually to be safe used by ****ants?


But it might mean banning 'hob-heated' chip pans, it would not stop
people making chip, using thermostatically controlled pans that can't
(in normal circumstances) over heat.

Inspection once, twice, or thrice per year, and what would be the
penalty be for having a non-compliant / un-calibrated chip pan ?

Derek

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:11:10 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message m...
snip

Ah. That would be 'common sense' snip

Nice if you are old enough and well enough to have some....

Shame upon you for thinking for yourselfsnip

Nice if you are old enough and well enough to do so....

Sorry & allthat but we are.

Contrary to Nu-Labour / Prescotesque doctrine ...

The human race has survived this far without it.

Derek

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:50:23 +0100, wrote:

On 16 Aug,
"Roger Mills" wrote:

Problem is though that if the water coming out of the tap is only at 48C it
will be decidely *cool* by the time it's heated up a cast iron bath.
Besides which, if you have a long soak and want to re-vitalise the water,
topping up with 48C water ain't going to do much!

I've got a TMV on my hot water supply at 50C and there's no such problem. It
was a problem beforehand, when sometines it came out of the taps near 80C
despite the tank thermostat (at the bottom of the tank) being set at 60C.

That's fine.

I have no bath, I have thermostatic shower, I have a combi boiler
with the ho****er set at 60C wgich is fine for us, where does that
leave me ?

Derek

Jerry wrote:

Huge obviously know little about commercial printing...

Guess what? You're wrong.

On Aug 16, 4:43*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Mike Clarke" wrote in message

...

Jerry wrote:

Are they proposing to specify these thermostatic taps for the wash
basin also then?

No.

So there's another danger. Someone rigs up a length of hose from the basin
to the bath. They stand up in the bath and lean over to the washbasin to
add more hot water, lose their balance and slip due to not much friction
between feet and bath, knock themselves unconscious and drown in the bath.

I solved that problem.. I put a 43C mixer immediately after the combi..
there are no *hot* water outlets and only a tefal one cup to heat water.


Bacteria must love you. Hope you dont have a shower.


NT

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:00 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
stuart noble wrote:
snip
I suppose statistics from hospital A&E departments are driving
this.

I very much dout it.
I very much suspect so, I also suspect that you have not bothered to
follow the various questions and debates that have occoured in
Parliament on this issue - it has been the evidence from A&E
departments (in the form of admittance records IIRC) etc. that has
brought the issue to the fore.


Well I have, the significant problem is amongst vulnerable people
(mostly institutionalised elderly) only.

Its some bloody civil servant trying to make a job for himself by
inventing a need where none exists.
snip the rest of your ignorant rant

&UPU2

More like people not wanting to see more kids

Kids don't come into it. They'd leap out of a scalding bath.

Portable baby baths used to be filled by kettles when we had babies.

and confused elderly
being admitted to hospital with severe - didn't Princess Margaret
suffer such an injury about 18 months before she died?

She did indeed. AIUI she had a habit which made her vulnerable.

In the same vein I also personally know of a bloke who came back from
the pub with the munchies, put the chip pan on and fell asleep in his
chair. He was killed when the whole house caught fire

Does this mean all chip pans must be built, certified, stamped and
inspected annually to be safe used by ****ants?

Derek

Many years ago my mother (sober) left a chip pan unattended, totalling
the kitchen and smoke damaging the rest of the house. Ask any insurance
company or emergency service what they think of chip pans.

I have not followed the whole thread but why not try and make things
safer. We accept earths and RCDs on electrical circuits, a stenching
agent is put in natural gas etc. etc.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:16:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I solved that problem.. I put a 43C mixer immediately after the combi..

Bacteria must love you. Hope you dont have a shower.

Yeah a 43C shower is only just warm. I always have to wind the temp on
hotel showers past the 43C "safety" setting to get a decent temp shower.

Bacteria though, I guess for hand washing up? As 43C is way to cool for
that. The water in the pipe work is mains water and the hot side will have
been heated to what ever the combi is set to. So I see no real difference
between this water in the pipe work and any other. It'll probably be run
down the drain anyway as some one wants the tepid 43C water...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Invisible Man wrote:

I have not followed the whole thread but why not try and make things
safer. We accept earths and RCDs on electrical circuits, a stenching
agent is put in natural gas etc. etc.

The things do not detract from the functionality of these devices. Well
RCDs..lets not go there..


The point is I need water at 60C to have baths the way I want to have
baths.
If other people want to have TMV's that is up to them.

If hospitals and care homes with a duty of catre, need to have them,
thats up to them.

What I object to is having to have needlessly expensive taps that don't
do what I want, just because some bureaucrat insists.

Another way of making homes less affordable..


Oh, and ANOTHER CFL unit has died in the hot weather..that fitting has
now eaten 3 lamps in 2 years.

Its getting some standard bulbs next time it goes: they last longer.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-17, Steve Firth wrote:
Jerry wrote:

Huge obviously know little about commercial printing...

Guess what? You're wrong.

Although in his defence, McCorquodales was a long time ago.


So how come you don't understand the fact that the PDF file on the web
is a just a direct copy of the PDF file used by the printers of the
hard copy version?...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

The point is I need water at 60C to have baths the way I want to
have baths.

You do not *need* water at 60C, you choose to have such a
temperature, perhaps if you had more cold baths you would not have
such a frazzled brain!
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

wrote in message
...
On 16 Aug,
"Jerry" wrote:

I very much suspect so, I also suspect that you have not bothered
to
follow the various questions and debates that have occoured in
Parliament on this issue - it has been the evidence from A&E
departments (in the form of admittance records IIRC) etc. that has
brought the issue to the fore.

Mostly from non domestic premises, hostels, and care homes. AIUI
they already
have to have TMVs as a result.


No, the figures come from domestic accidents.

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
snip

I have no bath, I have thermostatic shower, I have a combi boiler
with the ho****er set at 60C wgich is fine for us, where does that
leave me ?


Scaled, after you didn't notice that the thermostat has been moved?...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...