Can I reduce ALL my inbound water pressure?

[Mary Fisher]

I once saw some champagne toothpaste. I think it wa a water-saving product, you didn't want to rinse.

Especially at the price!

Mary

[Rod]

Go to

for "Self Closing Taps". You should see as below plus various infra-red and electronic taps.

Self Closing Taps

Quality brass, chrome plated, self closing taps (after 12 to 15 seconds) are designed to control water and energy particularly in commercial and industrial environments, e.g. offices, factories, schools, prisons, motorway service stations.

Each tap comes with a hot and cold sticker which the installer applies as required.

PLEASE NOTE THAT PRICES REFER TO ONE TAP ONLY (NOT A PAIR), AS SOME CUSTOMERS FIT ONE TAP PER SINK.

1/2" Self-Closing Deck Tap Part No. Description Unit Price Qty 13774 /2" self-closing deck tap, hot or cold £19.27

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:08:27 +0100 someone who may be HowieC wrote this:-

Did you operate them every six months or so? Valves should be operated to the full limit of travel every six months or so. If this is not done then they are likely not to move when wanted, which is usually in an emergency.

[dennis]

Like item # 11690 at

?

Expensive though, they are about £13 each. ;-)

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:29 +0100 someone who may be HowieC wrote this:-

It will make no difference to the possibility of scalding water or death.

The comparison is with death. Scalding can be on a small scale or a large scale, depending on how able the person is to escape the shower, which is easier from a shower tray than a shower over the bath. If the person is unable to escape then the scalding may lead to death. It doesn't happen every day, but it is a risk that should be considered and guarded against.

Not mentioning it does not change the fact that it is a possibility. It is generally the frail who suffer death, for example .

It is more common in baths and it is not just the frail who can be killed. The most famous case recently is All cold water SHOULD BE (and is) fed directly from the mains.

Ah, proof by shouting. Very convincing.

[Mary Fisher]

Mary

[HowieC]

|On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:08:27 +0100 someone who may be HowieC | wrote this:- | |>|*Fully open, then turned back 1/2 a turn, to help stop it seasing open) |>

|>Now I have done this before. The only thing is that they end up |>siezing up. | |Did you operate them every six months or so? Valves should be |operated to the full limit of travel every six months or so. If this |is not done then they are likely not to move when wanted, which is |usually in an emergency.

Hi. No I didn't. These obviously aren't the answer to my problem, as I don't keep a self-recurring diary note for stuff like that - and have a poor memory.

Thanks all the same, though.

H.

[HowieC]

|On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:29 +0100 someone who may be HowieC | wrote this:- | |>|>Mixers. Gravity-fed (hot). Mains (cold). |>| |>|An extremely bad setup. Mains pressure varies, for example if |>|someone opens a nearby tap or flushes a toilet. When the mains |>|pressure reduces the water in the shower hose will get hotter. The |>|extreme case is if the mains fails altogether. In this case there is |>|no cold water at all at the shower, but the hot water is still being |>|fed by the cold water storage tank. The result is scalding at best, |>|at worst death. |>

|>So. My idea of a PRV at lower overall pressure would help solve |>that problem then? | |It will make no difference to the possibility of scalding water or |death.

Agreed. But only in the same way that a carpet won't make any difference to a floor collapsing from rotten floor-joists.

|>I cannot imagine how you can think that the |>BEST scenario on the system failure is to be scalded. | |The comparison is with death. Scalding can be on a small scale or a |large scale, depending on how able the person is to escape the |shower, which is easier from a shower tray than a shower over the |bath. If the person is unable to escape then the scalding may lead |to death. It doesn't happen every day, but it is a risk that should |be considered and guarded against.

Done (a long time ago). | |>(I won't even mention your suggestion that death could occur)! | |Not mentioning it does not change the fact that it is a possibility. |It is generally the frail who suffer death, for example |.

Ridiculous.

|It is more common in baths and it is not just the frail who can be |killed. The most famous case recently is |Why on earth would I want it any hotter? | |To kill off the legionella. Thermostatic mixing valves can be fitted |to lower the temperature at the outlets.

Costs more money. Harmful to the environment and also my carbon footprint. Oh, - and pointless.

|>I will never allow cold water to come from a stored tank. It is |>too risky a possibility that someone in the future will connect |>another outlet to it and risk serious health problems through |>ingestion. | |Provided a cold water storage tank is designed, installed and |maintained properly it poses minimal health problems, let alone |serious health problems if one drinks the water.

Rubbish (again). You need to do a bit more research. Try to find out the risks of using ambient non-airated standing water for drinking (or ingestion from, say, teeth-cleaning).

|There is a fashionable belief amongst some that cold water storage |tanks pose health problems. What those people don't realise is that |mains water has generally been through several storage tanks before |it reaches a house.

But all at the correct temperature and through the appropriate light and particle filters, and thereby treated to potable standard before it does.

|By the sound of it there are serious health problems in your house, |in the hot water cylinder and hot water system.

Don't you worry about me. You have a lot of research to do yet.

|>All cold water SHOULD BE (and is) fed directly from the mains. | |Ah, proof by shouting. Very convincing.

I THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT THIS IS SHOUTING.

However, THIS is is just emhasis.

So is _this_.

See the differences?

Perhaps you objected to my two higher-case words in order to avoid answering the point I made. Spotted it, I'm afraid.

H.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:30:55 +0100 someone who may be HowieC wrote this:-

It doesn't need to be particularly accurate, but if one does want to have a guide then say when the clocks go forward and when they go back will give two operating a year without having to particularly remember anything new.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:55:37 +0100 someone who may be HowieC wrote this:-

It is not clear what you are calling ridiculous. The death, the article?

Ah, proof by assertion again.

What is? The storage temperature, or the delivery temperature?

All things which have to be weighed against the risks of legionnaires disease. It is't a great killer in the domestic environment, but that does not mean it can be ignored.

Ah, proof by assertion again.

Ah, proof by assertion again.

Ah, a mind reader. You claim to know how much research I have done on the subject. Fascinating.

You assume I am not aware of the risks. That assumption is false.

Ah, proof by assertion and mind reading again.

Ah, even more shouting.

Nice try, but a false statement.

The "point" you made was, "All cold water SHOULD BE (and is) fed directly from the mains." Your point is false.

Cold water storage tanks which are properly designed, installed and maintained will keep the temperature of the contents well below 20C, provide adequate turnover of the contents and not allow insects/animals in. Water kept in those conditions is fine to drink, let alone brush teeth and so on. Note that anything solid in the bottom of the tank can only have come from the mains, which is not as clean as many think it is.

There is a quick guide at , with particular regard to legionnaires disease.

[HowieC]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:55:17 +0100, David Hansen wrote another tirade, mainly based on his opinion and purported as fact.

David. It is obvious that this has reached the stage where we are both just attempting to back-up our existing individual opinions. Neither of us has any respect or interest in the other's 'advice' and nothing is being learned here. So, I think we'll leave it there.

I'm not used to being attacked as a result of just asking a simple question about water pressure. I've even been accused (by another) of being a bad parent. And this used to be SUCH a friendly, helpful group!

Anyway, lets just say that I'm happy with my home water systems and you're happy about yours. They don't match. And it seems that I am happy to take the risk of legionella at a temperature above

45c whilst you are happy to risk ingesting various other bacteria from cleaning your teeth with a supply from your storage tank.

Tell you what: Whoever dies last, wins. Agreed?

The bottom line is that I have now found out that a PRV will ensure that less water per-second will flow from my taps. And that's all I wanted to know. Thanks to all for the advice.

Regards,

H.

:

|On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:55:37 +0100 someone who may be HowieC | wrote this:- | |>|Not mentioning it does not change the fact that it is a possibility. |>|It is generally the frail who suffer death, for example |>|. |>

|>Ridiculous. | |It is not clear what you are calling ridiculous. The death, the |article? | |>|>My hot water is just heated to a temperature which is pleasant on |>|>the skin. |>| |>|Ideal breeding conditions for the rapid multiplication of legionella |>|bacteria by the sound of it. |>

|>Rubbish. | |Ah, proof by assertion again. | |>It's at approx 45c to 50c | |What is? The storage temperature, or the delivery temperature? | |>|>Why on earth would I want it any hotter? |>| |>|To kill off the legionella. Thermostatic mixing valves can be fitted |>|to lower the temperature at the outlets. |>

|>Costs more money. Harmful to the environment and also my carbon |>footprint. | |All things which have to be weighed against the risks of |legionnaires disease. It is't a great killer in the domestic |environment, but that does not mean it can be ignored. | |>Oh, - and pointless. | |Ah, proof by assertion again. | |>|Provided a cold water storage tank is designed, installed and |>|maintained properly it poses minimal health problems, let alone |>|serious health problems if one drinks the water. |>

|>Rubbish (again). | |Ah, proof by assertion again. | |>You need to do a bit more research. | |Ah, a mind reader. You claim to know how much research I have done |on the subject. Fascinating. | |>Try to find |>out the risks of using ambient non-airated standing water for |>drinking (or ingestion from, say, teeth-cleaning). | |You assume I am not aware of the risks. That assumption is false. | |>|By the sound of it there are serious health problems in your house, |>|in the hot water cylinder and hot water system. |>

|>Don't you worry about me. You have a lot of research to do yet. | |Ah, proof by assertion and mind reading again. | |>I THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT THIS IS SHOUTING. | |Ah, even more shouting. | |>Perhaps you objected to my two higher-case words in order to |>avoid answering the point I made. Spotted it, I'm afraid. | |Nice try, but a false statement. | |The "point" you made was, "All cold water SHOULD BE (and is) fed |directly from the mains." Your point is false. | |Cold water storage tanks which are properly designed, installed and |maintained will keep the temperature of the contents well below 20C, |provide adequate turnover of the contents and not allow |insects/animals in. Water kept in those conditions is fine to drink, |let alone brush teeth and so on. Note that anything solid in the |bottom of the tank can only have come from the mains, which is not |as clean as many think it is. | |There is a quick guide at |, |with particular regard to legionnaires disease.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:47:17 +0100 someone who may be HowieC wrote this:-

While you may be able to say that of yourself it is unclear why you think you can say that of me, unless you are claiming to be a mind reader. If you are claiming to be a mind reader then do not give up the day job.

I have one more thing which is worth learning from.

Cases of contaminated mains water supplies are not as rare as some think. Most are only reported locally, but the one at

got wider coverage, "A rabbit has been named as the cause of a sickness bug which was found in water supplies in Northamptonshire."

"

"says:"Experts investigating the contamination of Northampton's water supply have discovered the root of the problem - a small rabbit that found its way into a tank.

"Thousands of homes were left without water for more than a week following the outbreak of cryptosporidium last month.

"Boffins had been left baffled by the outbreak but tests have today revealed that the problem was caused by a single rabbit."

Is this the "royal we"?

As well as my current home water systems, in a previous existence I was responsible for a whole variety of water systems, ranging from an olympic sized swimming pool [1], via many air-conditioning systems, to house size systems.

While, due to the division of labour, some of the cold water systems were the responsibility of others I kept an eye on these too.

[1] almost an olympic size swimming pool. In order not to waste taxpayer's money on such an "extravagance" it was 1/4" too short, thus allowing people to say it was not olympic size. Utterly ridiculous, but that was the decision of people when the place was built, before I was born.

[HowieC]

|As well as my current home water systems, in a previous existence I |was responsible for a whole variety of water systems, ranging from |an olympic sized swimming pool [1], via many air-conditioning |systems, to house size systems. | |While, due to the division of labour, some of the cold water systems |were the responsibility of others I kept an eye on these too.

(if only!)

Dear Diddy David.

Look. I've tried. Now I give up.

I'm normally dead-set against killfiling people. But in this case, i've just had to do it. Sorry, but I just haven't got the time to piss about with an ego-driven, jumped-up, ex-Pool Attendant.

Hugs. Kisses. Goodbye. Plonk.

[Andrew Gabriel]

It can be ignored in the domestic environment; there isn't a single case. There's also evidence from Italy that exposure to it in the domestic environment leads to immunity. It's reasonable therefore to presume that eliminating it from the domestic environment probably leads to vulnerability to it elsewhere, just as we know with other infectious agents, but no proof of that yet AFAIK. It only became a fatal illness in the first place when we started trying to make water systems super clean, and thus reduced our exposure to it.

[Man at B&Q]

Why not? I've paid for it.

MBQ

[<me9]

Was that the Commonwealth pool? I thought it was only in Yorkshire they did that trick. (Leeds international pool, now gone!)

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:04:29 +0100 someone who may be HowieC wrote this:-

I note you were unable or unwilling to answer the points raised and so resorted to foot stamping.

Excellent, personal abuse. Do keep it up.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:57:52 +0100 someone who may be wrote this:-

No, not that one. The one concerned is not a council one. It is used regularly for training by various swimming clubs. It has also at various times been opened for swimming by the locals (IIRC on one evening a week). However, this use is curtailed from time to time and I gather this is the case at the moment.

[Onetap]

Utter bolleaux. We've discussed this before and I then posted details of at least one domestic case. There were others ISTR.

You contradict yourself in adjoining sentences, yet cannot notice your misinterpretation. The evidence from Italy was that some people with contaminated systems had legionella anti-bodies, or some immunity, from undiagnosed infections. The inference was that there had been many infections from domestic systems.

I think you've also taken that from my previous posts. The discussion did seem to be a bit one-sided in that I was posting all the references to the research that contradicted your idiosyncratic theories, but your opinion remained unchanged.

You seem to think that legionella can distinguish between minging domestic systems and minging commercial systems. How does it do that?

You ignore the evidence that doesn't conform with your perverse theory. My understanding is that many legionella infections go undiagnosed, or diagnosed as pneumonia. The patient gets anti-biotics, the patient recovers, the patient is discharged. In one incident to which I referred, legionella was not diagnosed until the patient, a plumber, realized he'd been exposed to stagnant tepid shower water.

You've overlooked the major feature of legionnaires' disease ( most diseases in fact) i.e., the survivors develop immunity.

Those that do not survive an infection are usually those with compromised immune systems, the elderly, the infirm, those weakened by other pre-existing medical conditions. That is why the most serious UK outbreaks in the early '80s involved NHS hospitals; lots of sick &/or old people in hospitals, see. Another clue is in the name "'Legionnaires' disease"; old American Legion blokes, veterans of WW2, Korea, WW1, etc., who fell victim to an offensive cooling tower.

Your opinions are ill-informed and potentially dangerous, but if you confine them to your own house, never allow any elderly or ill people in and never suffer any chest infections, then I'm confident that no harm will come of it.

[DM]

The advice now (that any of my kids have been receiving when the dental hygienist or whoever visits the school) is that you should not rinse any way, simply have a right good spit.

No water on the brush before brushing and only a quick clean of the brush after you've finished. No need at all for taps to be left running.

cheers

David