"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 23/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 10:42, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/08/2014 08:46, harryagain wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/08/2014 19:43, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 22:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:
...
Who wants slightly radioactive building blocks laced with arsenic
and
other heavy metals?

All breeze blocks are slightly radioactive. Granite and coal are
too,
more so.

There is also quite good, if circumstantial, evidence that slightly
raised
background radiation levels are good for human health.

That'll be why they done away with luminous waches and trimphones
then?



That was done for the _fear_ of radiation - that doesn't prove there
is
any danger.

That was done when it was realised that the effects of radiation are
cumulative.


And before they worked out that the radiation from betalights was
negligible unless you ate one.

I poked a geiger counter at one when I was at school. Nothing more than
normal background radiation was shown until the counter was almost
touching the unit. If you're worried about radiation, don't eat
bananas.

... or Brazil nuts.

Usual drivel.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php


That article makes no mention of radiation in food, so is as relevant as
the twaddle you normally link to. I wasted almost a minute reading that
article, I'll send an invoice for the wasted time....

It was others brought up food not I.

On 23/08/2014 17:08, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 19/08/2014 19:17, harryagain wrote:
....
I have done five houses up.
First one cost £400. (Ooop North 1970.)
Retrospectively, I wasn't bold enough, I could easily have done twice as
good and been a millionaire.

I know a builder who did much the same. It is only tax free if the house
is your main place of residence, so you have to live in a wreck for a
while. When we costed out how much he could have charged for his time
doing similar work for other people and factored in the normal rise in
house prices, he had made a profit, but nowhere near as much as he
originally thought.

Exactly so re the tax.
Spare time hobby for me.


Your time still has a value that you should not ignore when working out
the costing. However, from your various postings on here, you obviously
prefer not to work on the real costs of what you do.

--
Colin Bignell

On 23/08/2014 17:12, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:25, harryagain wrote:
...
But the saving includes some for the car.
...

ISTR that the savings you gave before would only apply if you had
previously been driving something like the 5 litre V8 Mercedes M Class I
used to run. To be realistic, you should compare the electric car to
something of similar size and discomfort.

I have.



Not from the figures you gave in the past, which were for a car with a
worse VED and fuel consumption than my Mercedes E250.

--
Colin Bignell

On 23/08/2014 17:31, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 20/08/2014 08:43, harryagain wrote:
...
I worked in the NHS as an energy efficiency engineer.

On here, you have demonstrated poor research skills, a lack of rigour in
reading or a lack of understanding of what you do find, unrealistic
predictions of the future, no understanding of commercial costing methods,
an inflexible mindset and a total rejection of anything that does not fit
your preconceived ideas. I somehow don't think those are ideal attributes
for that job.

And you have demonstrated you are stuck in the past, unable to see we need a
complety different way forward.



I agree that we need an entirely different way forward. I just don't
agree with you on what that is. A future based on nuclear energy is the
only long term answer.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/08/2014 19:06, harryagain wrote:
....
It was others brought up food not I.


That is because bananas and Brazil nuts are good sources of radioactive,
but essential, potassium.


--
Colin Bignell

On 23/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
....
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php


What that says is that individual diagnostic tests are not a problem,
but around 0.2% of patients may have enough of them to reach annual
exposures levels of 50mSv - half the exposure rate where there is any
evidence of (very minimal) risk.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/08/2014 19:43, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 24/08/2014 19:06, harryagain wrote:
...
It was others brought up food not I.


That is because bananas and Brazil nuts are good sources of radioactive,
but essential, potassium.


Not sure I'd call brazil nuts a "good" source. You'd need to eat about
530 grams to get your daily potassium requirement. And that is an awful
lot of nuts. And liable to cause a severe selenium overdose.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/...roducts/3091/2

Sun-dried tomatoes are possible the densest source needing only about
100 grams.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/...roducts/3021/2

--
Rod

On 24/08/2014 18:55, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message

8

Heat pump!, you have no mains gas.


I have no heat pump.


Mr Searle said: “When we first moved in, the first thing we did was put
more insulation in the loft. Shortly after that we filled the wall
cavities with foam insulation.”

The pair installed an air-to-air heat pump last year, which heats the
whole house.

Mr Searle said: “I don’t like waste in any form so energy conservation
is a fairly natural thing for me to do.

You lie a lot.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2014 21:02, bert wrote:
In message , harryagain
writes
....
The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

In 1894, a writer in The Times estimated that, within 50 years, the
streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure.

--
Colin Bignell

Hah, Drivel.
It was vitally neccesary that it all went back to where the oats came
from.

Bull****.

Total recycling.
Otherwise in a few years nothing would grow.

We did nothing like that with ours, essentially because
it was never going to be feasible to move it all back from
the city streets to where it was grown and it kept growing fine.

But Oz is just all desert.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I have been there.

But saw **** all of it when you did.

Took a bus trip across part of the interior.
It was nearly all desert.

Pity about the rest of it you never went anywhere near.

Filled with wannabe Crocodile Dundees at that time.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
news In message , harryagain
writes

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:16:57 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:



Yes I can see you know nothing about horses.
Working horses need high energy food additionally to grass, ie grain
or
these days "concentrates".
In days of yore,large areas of land were set aside for growing oats
just
to
feed horses and oxen.
You don't get energy from nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_...n#Concentrates

Grass Harry. All grains (wheat, barley, oats etc), they're all
grasses, or didn't you know that? Concentrates are made from them. So
why have all these green machines, the horses, disappeared, Harry?
It's because they've been replaced by infinitely more efficient
machines that burn fuels such as coal or oil.

..and don't produce cart loads of ****.
--
bert

The horse **** is a very useful product.
Unlike the **** we get from burning fossil fuels.


Not in the quantities produced in large cities before the internal
combustion engine came along.

It was all needed, there was no other source of plant nutrient. back
then.
I use as much as I can get in my garden.


Horsehit as usual. Farms were self sufficient with manure. There weren't
the means to move it great distances.

There was a major traffic on canal boats.

Not with **** going back to where the horse feed came from there weren't.

It had to removed from towns because of the pong if nothing else

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 23/08/2014 18:10, harryagain wrote:
Usual drivel eh TurNiP

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php

Read your own quotes Harry.

it's talking about the risks from exposure in a single session of over
10 times your normal annual dose.

That's unrelated to any risk from a small rise in background.

Andy

On 24/08/14 19:39, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
I agree that we need an entirely different way forward. I just don't
agree with you on what that is. A future based on nuclear energy is the
only long term answer.
+1


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 24/08/14 19:39, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
I agree that we need an entirely different way forward. I just don't
agree with you on what that is. A future based on nuclear energy is the
only long term answer.
+1
+2



--
Tim Lamb

On 19/08/2014 22:58, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/08/2014 22:10, Dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.

He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html

You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that much and never have. You must waste a lot.

Yep. In a house with no double glazing, 100mm of loft insulation,
electric cooking, non-off peak electric water heating and direct
electric heating, I pay about £2,500 a year. The electricity company
keep trying to persuade me that is excessive.

Why don't you get the loft insulation upgraded to 200mm or better 250mm?
(at least above the rooms that you actually use)

It is a fairly easy if tedious DIY procedure and the plastic bag
enclosed glass fibre insulation is easy to handle.

You can get energy saving grants if inpecunious or free schemes for the
elderly. Same for cavity wall insulation if your house walls actually
have cavities (mine don't). Double glazing the rooms that you actually
heat will also make a worthwhile long term saving too.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 25/08/2014 08:41, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/08/2014 22:58, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/08/2014 22:10, Dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname
here wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC
would have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if
he has made as much out of the FIT.

He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html



You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a
year. That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot. You
need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere
near that much and never have. You must waste a lot.

Yep. In a house with no double glazing, 100mm of loft insulation,
electric cooking, non-off peak electric water heating and direct
electric heating, I pay about £2,500 a year. The electricity
company keep trying to persuade me that is excessive.

Why don't you get the loft insulation upgraded to 200mm or better
250mm? (at least above the rooms that you actually use)

If you have to pay it probably isn't worth doing..

You lose about 25% of heat through the roof, 100mm of loft insulation
will cut that down to about 1%. Adding another 100 mm will halve that so
save you 0.5%. You are probably better off using the money to save
elsewhere.


It is a fairly easy if tedious DIY procedure and the plastic bag
enclosed glass fibre insulation is easy to handle.

You can get energy saving grants if inpecunious or free schemes for
the elderly.

Some areas can get free 270 mm loft insulation for any house built
before about 1995 (when it became the standard).

Same for cavity wall insulation if your house walls
actually have cavities (mine don't).

You can get a green deal loan to have solid walls insulated now.
If you actually want to save energy that could save about 40% of your
heating energy.

Double glazing the rooms that
you actually heat will also make a worthwhile long term saving too.

Double glazing won't svae much compared to the cost.
However it makes the house more comfortable and gets rid of the
draughts. Getting rid of draughts saves about 10% and cost very little
for the DIY materials.


Regards, Martin Brown

On 25/08/2014 08:41, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/08/2014 22:58, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/08/2014 22:10, Dennis@home wrote:
On 19/08/2014 19:20, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 18/08/2014 09:56, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here
wrote:


£15k invested with a medium risk portfolio I have with HSBC would
have increased to £22.78k over 5 years. I wonder if he has made
as much out of the FIT.

He would have made about £5k but at zero risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...efficient.html


You aren't very energy efficient if you are using 7000kWhr a year.
That's more than I use and the daughter uses a lot.
You need to do better if you actually want to save the planet.


I could never save £4000 a year on energy, I don't pay anywhere near
that much and never have. You must waste a lot.

Yep. In a house with no double glazing, 100mm of loft insulation,
electric cooking, non-off peak electric water heating and direct
electric heating, I pay about £2,500 a year. The electricity company
keep trying to persuade me that is excessive.

Why don't you get the loft insulation upgraded to 200mm or better 250mm?
(at least above the rooms that you actually use)

It is a fairly easy if tedious DIY procedure and the plastic bag
enclosed glass fibre insulation is easy to handle.

The loft is fully boarded and used for light storage, so it would be
considerably more complicated than simply throwing in another layer of
mineral wool. It also wouldn't be worth the cost. The roof is currently
more than 80 years into its 60 year expected life, so will probably need
to be replaced soon. When that becomes necessary, I will have under tile
slab insulation fitted to bring it up to modern standards and get rid of
the mineral wool.

You can get energy saving grants if inpecunious or free schemes for the
elderly.

I've never qualified for any home improvement grants.

Same for cavity wall insulation if your house walls actually
have cavities (mine don't).

Not a massive gain and probably not cost effective. It might have been
worth having it done 20 years ago, at the time I had the wall ties
replaced, but I wasn't convinced of the benefit then either.

Double glazing the rooms that you actually
heat will also make a worthwhile long term saving too.

Draught proofing the windows would probably be more useful. However, the
windows are also showing signs of their age and will need replacing
soon. Again, that will be the time to bring them up to modern standards.

I really also ought to get the boiler replaced, so I have central
heating again. As you may gather, the whole thing doesn't really bother
me that much.


--
Colin Bignell

On 24/08/2014 20:07, polygonum wrote:
On 24/08/2014 19:43, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 24/08/2014 19:06, harryagain wrote:
...
It was others brought up food not I.


That is because bananas and Brazil nuts are good sources of radioactive,
but essential, potassium.


Not sure I'd call brazil nuts a "good" source.

Gram for gram, about twice as good a source as bananas.

You'd need to eat about
530 grams to get your daily potassium requirement. And that is an awful
lot of nuts. And liable to cause a severe selenium overdose.

I don't think I would rely upon them alone for my whole daily dose, but
they taste a lot better than bananas.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/...roducts/3091/2

Sun-dried tomatoes are possible the densest source needing only about
100 grams.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/...roducts/3021/2


Not something I would choose to nibble on as a snack though.


--
Colin Bignell