World Nuclear Assoc: Nuclear power in the UK - a very interesting read

Ah, OK. Even at that rate, it'd still be a fraction of the winter fuel allowance, say. And whether one pound or two, if an individual needs to make such decisions because of a lack of money, again - keeping warm isn't the problem.

Sleep, go out, move around their home.

Yep, I could think of one or two ;-)

Reply to
RJH
Loading thread data ...

Very much depends on where you live. Generally metropolitan areas are much better funded (on a per capita measure) than rural ones.

Reply to
bert

You can but some are better balanced than others. like

formatting link

Like all the cuts in the NHS that appear to have made it a lot better?

Reply to
dennis

Tesco charge 7 quid for delivery, unless you spend more than 40 quid.

Interesting you expect that poor OAP who can't afford to run a 1 bar electric fire to have a freezer, microwave and computer. ;-)

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Yup. All done for efficiency. That being financial efficiency. Patient care is at the bottom of the list.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Brown---70-x-150cm

e. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a week.

hould be less much of the time.

It sure is a problem.

moving around doesn't change need for heat. And if you're elderly and finan cially struggling you won't be doing much going out.

ce & comfortable. But they're not cheap, and possibly not a few other thing s either.

Quite. I'd not expect health problems at such low levels, but I don't know if it's been tested. If I were elderly, poor and freezing I'd run with it - if by some miracle the money showed up.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

It's cheaper than meals on wheels anyway. I did look at the prices of services like that years ago.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

snip

It's not *the* problem, though. If someone in the UK can't afford £2 a week for heat, the problem is wealth poverty.

Yes, it does. I'd have thought just about every animal knows this :-)

Almost the opposite in my experience. But I would accept that a significant minority (say) might be staying in most of the time. Social isolation can be a killer, too.

Reply to
RJH

the question is of course how much food you need to stay warm moving about versus how much energy you need to stay warm being immobile, and how much this costs relatively speaking.

And how much elderly people CAN move.

You try brisk exercise with blocked coronary arteries...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

+1

The principal source of energy available to the human body is the food that is consumed. When a person takes exercise they use energy inefficiently, like most machines. Some of that energy is used in the actual moving about, and the rest appears as heat, raising body temperature, causing sweating etc. Surely, when food supplies are limited, it's better to remain fairly still and conserve what energy is available solely for body warmth, rather that wasting much of that energy moving about and relying on what's left over to create warmth.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

That's how Scandinavians do it. Stay drunk and immobile all winter.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

So heat is a problem. Very very obviously.

When you're elderly with limited mobility the rate & amount of movement mak es very little difference. You still need heat. Odd that some don't realise that.

minority?

Enjoy trolling.

Reply to
tabbypurr

Older people also often have poor or worsening circulation which makes it harder for them to get warm.

Reply to
Tim Streater

No, quite. I was referring to the 'they' in the OP's quote. Causes of winter deaths are notoriously difficult to pin down in a general sense - section 12 of that report.

Reply to
RJH

Indeed.

Moving around does change the need for heat. Obviously, if you have limited mobility you can't move around as much. Not sure why you felt the need to say that.

Should have been clearer - *significant* minority.

Depends also how you define elderly, I suppose. Figures for England's over 65s:

formatting link

Broken down a bit, with a focus on mobility:

formatting link

Reply to
RJH

But not so difficult for the likes of Tomlinson to blame on 'tree huggers'.

;-)

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

But it only costs £2 a week to get warm. More than covered by what the government pays them to get warm.

Reply to
John

think he's been on the sauce again

Reply to
tabbypurr

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted

If that's what they are doing they are going a funny way about it. Taxes for the rich - in fact for the better off generally - have increased markedly in the last five years.

Reply to
Handsome Jack

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.