I, for one, have not forgotten that, but it is apparent that a number of us are far from convinced that the stated 'understanding' is correct (and that, if it is correct, is probably a bit daft/'OTT') - and that, if the person who presented that 'understanding' is (understandably!) not able to provide 'evidence and proof', it seems very inappropriate that those who are unsure about the correctness of that 'understanding' should be expected to produce 'evidence and proof' to support their position.
Boiling Water
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
They haven't been.
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 561
- Country
Doesn't all this stem from the "fluid categories"... (sadly doesn't include the word potable in it, though)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1148/schedule/1/made
Hot water is category 2, only when you reach category 3 does it become a "slight health hazard", so I would infer from that, that category 2 is potable, but tastes funny!
If all that's needed is a "change in temperature" to impair it's "aesthetic quality", then taking a hot glass, straight from the dishwasher and filling it with fresh cold water must surely be classed as category 2, but no-one in their right mind would say that it's not drinkable.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1148/schedule/1/made
Hot water is category 2, only when you reach category 3 does it become a "slight health hazard", so I would infer from that, that category 2 is potable, but tastes funny!
If all that's needed is a "change in temperature" to impair it's "aesthetic quality", then taking a hot glass, straight from the dishwasher and filling it with fresh cold water must surely be classed as category 2, but no-one in their right mind would say that it's not drinkable.
In response to my reporting of my personal view it was said:
Sponsored Links
Yes, that was said.
Your point being?
Your point being?
In response to my reporting of my personal view iut was said:
[I'm also tempted to wonder what the "So" at the start of that sentence actually adds to its meaning].In response to my reporting of my personal view iut was said:
It means the same as "Therefore".
It links the observation I made to the statement(s) you made.
As for this "expectation" which you think was imposed, you are mistaken. I said, in essence, "It might be that... and if it is then people should not...". What I wrote in reply to you was to make it clear that you had not provided any proof that it wasn't as I suggested it might be. Whatever your personal opinion, it could not in any way affect the validity of the concern there would be if it was as I suggested. I felt it important to highlight that because that was what we were discussing, not people's opinions on what they would personally be happy to do no matter what the facts.
It links the observation I made to the statement(s) you made.
As for this "expectation" which you think was imposed, you are mistaken. I said, in essence, "It might be that... and if it is then people should not...". What I wrote in reply to you was to make it clear that you had not provided any proof that it wasn't as I suggested it might be. Whatever your personal opinion, it could not in any way affect the validity of the concern there would be if it was as I suggested. I felt it important to highlight that because that was what we were discussing, not people's opinions on what they would personally be happy to do no matter what the facts.
The comment 'to make it clear that I had not provided any proof that it wasn't as had been suggested' followed on from "...I could be wrong, but it would be nice, if I were, if people could show that with actual evidence and proof, not dismiss "academic arguments" and "regulations" on the basis of being "personally happy" to ignore those because they didn't "really didn't believe" their validity.". I regard that as an 'expectation' that if people potentially disagree with what has been suggested, the burden is on them to provide 'evidence and proof' to support their potential disagreement, rather than on the person who made the suggestion to provide 'evidence and proof' of what they had suggested - which, as I said, seems all wrong to me. "I could be wrong" acknowledges that the initial suggestion might have been incorrect, so why should it be others who also feel that it may be incorrect that are expected to provide the 'evidence and proof'?
... and "Therefore, in other words..." means something different from "In other words...." in what way?
Even without the "Therefore", "in other words" clearly refers back to what has preceded the statement.
Even without the "Therefore", "in other words" clearly refers back to what has preceded the statement.
"... it would be nice, if I were [wrong], if people could show that [i.e. that the original suggestion was wrong] with actual evidence and proof" is an expectation or desire that people should provide "actual evidence and proof" that the original suggestion was incorrect - which, as I said, seems to place the burden on the wrong person.
The fact that I would personally "dismiss 'academic arguments' and 'regulations' on the basis of being 'personally happy' to ignore those because they didn't 'really didn't believe' their validity." is a totally different matter - and simply means that, even if the initial suggestion (and the 'academic arguments' and 'regulations') were correct, my personal judgement/view is that I would nevertheless personally be happy to drink or cook with water that had been boiled after passing through a combi boiler. That's what "personally" means.
The fact that I would personally "dismiss 'academic arguments' and 'regulations' on the basis of being 'personally happy' to ignore those because they didn't 'really didn't believe' their validity." is a totally different matter - and simply means that, even if the initial suggestion (and the 'academic arguments' and 'regulations') were correct, my personal judgement/view is that I would nevertheless personally be happy to drink or cook with water that had been boiled after passing through a combi boiler. That's what "personally" means.
Indeed it is.
And it is an unacceptable reason to dismiss the possibility which I raised.
And it is an unacceptable reason to dismiss the possibility which I raised.
You can argue that it was superfluous, but it was not nonsensical.
I do hope that you are not so arguing in an attempt to muddy the waters regarding the recent instance of somebody opening a post with "So I have a double socket in my garage ...", because that use was nonsensical.
Good grief, does no-one read what I "actually write"? (with added emphasis)...
In other words, even if the possibility I am being accused of 'dismissing' were correct and valid, I would nevertheless personally still be happy to drink or cook with the water in question. I have never 'dismissed' anything and, on the contrary, on more than one occasion in this thread have said that I do not know what are the official/regulatory/legislated requirements about potable water, any more than do those accusing me of 'dismissing' such requirements.
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,703
- Reaction score
- 2,670
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
So at the very end is it any worster or is it worstist? Should be of course in the end is it any worst. We all at times use unnecessary or meaning less words. Likely the drawing in of air through the teeth will soon be given a name, maybe it already has one? Be it tut tut, or anything else we have go use to inferring, rather than saying anything, leaving the receiver wondering what they have done wrong, and if they than do some thing, the other person will claim correctly of course they didn't say a word.
It is how things are all to often done. "You have put a socket that close to the sink?" is not actually saying it's wrong, but suggests it is. It does seem back in the 14th Edition there was a distance quoted, idea was sink should not be close enough to kettle so you could fill it without unplugging, however there were so many times including fitting of wall mounted water boilers where one needed a socket so the unit could be easy removed for cleaning, but whole idea was it was always plugged in at any other time.
I can't remember if gas or electric, but remember the glass bodied units that filled with a push on tube on the tap, and had a sounder which hummed or whistled when it boiled. Later we saw the urn, often screwed to the work surface so it could not be tilted to get one last cup, with a tap to fill it right above the lid.
I would still not drink from hot tap in a premises where I don't know how the water is heated, however I remember returning home from Algeria vie France, my wife picked me up with car and caravan and we drove home gradually. My question was can we drink water from the taps? as in Algeria unless it actually said potable on the tap, then you assumed you could not drink from it. My wife did not know, this is 1980's so question was do they sell bottled water in the shops, answer yes, so next question, do you think the French would buy bottled water if they could drink tap water, so since everything to drink in car was made with tap water, felt better not to drink it. All we had which we knew was safe was wine, Oh did my wife get drunk!
There water was likely better than ours, and we also now drink bottled water, but the reasoning like the Monty python witch burning sketch can get it wrong. We see it again and again "You can't have an earth electrode with a TN system" was a common statement, it was actually true, but only because it was not called an earth electrode, it was an "extraneous-conductive-part" same as can't use water pipe as an earth, however that does not mean a water pipe does not have a green/yellow wire attached as it is an extraneous-conductive-part.
Some things we have to say if you can, others we say if you can't, like light bulbs must state if not dimmable other wise they are with EU rules. So in the main with water we get
and unless we get that sign water from a tap is drinkable. If a boiler is likely to contaminant water, plumbers (workers of lead) would need to put up these signs in any public place. I looked for a standard sign "Do not drink hot water" or similar, but could not find one.
It is how things are all to often done. "You have put a socket that close to the sink?" is not actually saying it's wrong, but suggests it is. It does seem back in the 14th Edition there was a distance quoted, idea was sink should not be close enough to kettle so you could fill it without unplugging, however there were so many times including fitting of wall mounted water boilers where one needed a socket so the unit could be easy removed for cleaning, but whole idea was it was always plugged in at any other time.
I can't remember if gas or electric, but remember the glass bodied units that filled with a push on tube on the tap, and had a sounder which hummed or whistled when it boiled. Later we saw the urn, often screwed to the work surface so it could not be tilted to get one last cup, with a tap to fill it right above the lid.
I would still not drink from hot tap in a premises where I don't know how the water is heated, however I remember returning home from Algeria vie France, my wife picked me up with car and caravan and we drove home gradually. My question was can we drink water from the taps? as in Algeria unless it actually said potable on the tap, then you assumed you could not drink from it. My wife did not know, this is 1980's so question was do they sell bottled water in the shops, answer yes, so next question, do you think the French would buy bottled water if they could drink tap water, so since everything to drink in car was made with tap water, felt better not to drink it. All we had which we knew was safe was wine, Oh did my wife get drunk!
There water was likely better than ours, and we also now drink bottled water, but the reasoning like the Monty python witch burning sketch can get it wrong. We see it again and again "You can't have an earth electrode with a TN system" was a common statement, it was actually true, but only because it was not called an earth electrode, it was an "extraneous-conductive-part" same as can't use water pipe as an earth, however that does not mean a water pipe does not have a green/yellow wire attached as it is an extraneous-conductive-part.
Some things we have to say if you can, others we say if you can't, like light bulbs must state if not dimmable other wise they are with EU rules. So in the main with water we get
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
- Status
Sponsored Links
