Cost of Living Crisis

[Horse]

This is a great example of the BBC's one sided reporting. By failing to carry out the same measurements on the subject wearing different types and layers of clothing they are simply providing a worst case scenario.

Really? Even though they said:

The outfit was not a choice - the scientists needed direct access to the skin to conduct the experiment

The point, as I read it, wasn't to show any benefits from wearing additional layers as that would only have slowed the inevitable.

He's invited me to his laboratory to explore the impact of cold homes on our bodies

[cheb]

And he couldn't put clothes or any other covering over the sensors?

I'll admit I didn't read the article, is the conclusion that if you are inadequately clothed in a cold environment then you'll get cold?

[Horse]

is the conclusion that if you are inadequately clothed in a cold environment then you'll get cold?

No, it's about the effects that cold has on the brain and body.

I'll admit I didn't

read the article

[Hoonercat]

And he couldn't put clothes or any other covering over the sensors?

I'll admit I didn't read the article, is the conclusion that if you are inadequately clothed in a cold environment then you'll get cold?

It's not really about how to keep yourself warm (though does mention extra layers etc at the end). It's more about showing people that even temps that aren't considered extreme can have an effect on the body. I'd like to have seen more info on the speed of the temp drop, from personal experience the speed at which it drops has a bigger impact on the body than the actual temp it drops to.

[Count Steer]

Didn't someone (Japan?) do response to cold tests on PoWs? Stuck them in ice baths etc. Don't suppose they could do that sort of thing now. It's established that core temperature drop is pretty devastating - and often fatal (survival times in, not particularly cold, water are a bit ).

[DefTrap]

Cold isn't too bad ( my house is largely unheated) but cold and long periods of immobility really sucks your core temperature down. Plus being cold seems to make you less likely to get up and do something.

I'm not convinced that being cold makes you more susceptible to virus, I don't think it's a big factor anyway. Sitting about in crowded, heated offices with colleagues sneezing over you is the best way to get a virus.

[Horse]

Didn't someone (Japan?) do response to cold tests
Stuck them in ice baths etc.

Don't suppose they could do that sort of thing now.

Mengele did some 'research' too ...

It's established that core temperature drop is pretty devastating

This was about brain function and more.

[cheb]

Didn't someone (Japan?) do response to cold tests on PoWs? Stuck them in ice baths etc. Don't suppose they could do that sort of thing now. It's established that core temperature drop is pretty devastating - and often fatal (survival times in, not particularly cold, water are a bit ).

The Germans, and AFAIK the data is still used. There was an article about in the BMJ a decade or so ago.

[Horse]

Didn't someone (Japan?) do response to cold tests on PoWs?

The Germans, and AFAIK the data is still used. There was an article about in the BMJ a decade or so ago.

Mengele's stuff on head injuries informed development of motorcycle helmets.

[irie]

Cold isn't too bad ( my house is largely unheated) but cold and long periods of immobility really sucks your core temperature down. Plus being cold seems to make you less likely to get up and do something.

I'm not convinced that being cold makes you more susceptible to virus, I don't think it's a big factor anyway. Sitting about in crowded, heated offices with colleagues sneezing over you is the best way to get a virus.

Going to A&E and waiting for hours with lots of other people to be seen is a more effective way to get a virus.

[Yambo]

This is a great example of the BBC's one sided reporting. By failing to carry out the same measurements on the subject wearing different types and layers of clothing they are simply providing a worst case scenario.

Really? Even though they said:

The outfit was not a choice - the scientists needed direct access to the skin to conduct the experiment

The point, as I read it, wasn't to show any benefits from wearing additional layers as that would only have slowed the inevitable.

He's invited me to his laboratory to explore the impact of cold homes on our bodies

"Ten degrees is the average temperature that people will be living in, if they can't afford to heat their homes," said Prof Bailey.

The whole thing was to draw attention to the idea that people may not be able to heat their homes and may therefore suffer some physical consequences. Without showing that a couple of layers of clothing may well mitigate the effects they are simply scaremongering. Do the same tests with different amounts and different types of clothing, show the results and people will understand that even if they can't afford to heat their homes, they don't necessarily have to be cold or suffer the effects of cold.

As has been said, this is not new research and if it is going to be linked to cost of living and not keeping warm then why not explain how it can all be dealt with.

My house is unheated except for a log burner which I only light up when it's a miserable day and then, only in the evening. I don't get hypothermia. I once rode a motorbike out of the camp gates at -15°C spent two weeks playing soldiers, riding the bike most days and rode back into camp at -12°C. During the two weeks, I measured -26°C and my radio operators, stuck up on the rim of a quarry measured -32°C. We were living in tents or the cabs/backs of trucks. No-one got hypothermia, frostbite or hospitalised. I'll give you one guess why.

The article was an opportunity to explain to the masses that yes, cold can kill and does funny things to you but hey, you can do things to mitigate these things. The scientists and the reporter should have done a bit more thinking and done a proper job. They're all slackers or maybe suffering the effects of the cold. :dunno:

[Yambo]

From the same page as that article

Listen to Inside Health podcast: How can a cool homes affect your health?

Whoever was hitting the keyboard is also a bit of a slacker and the proofreader too.

The BBC is shit.

[Noggin]

No, it's about the effects that cold has on the brain and body.

Isn't that fairly obvious?

[Hoonercat]

The whole thing was to draw attention to the idea that people may not be able to heat their homes and may therefore suffer some physical consequences. Without showing that a couple of layers of clothing may well mitigate the effects they are simply scaremongering. Do the same tests with different amounts and different types of clothing, show the results and people will understand that even if they can't afford to heat their homes, they don't necessarily have to be cold or suffer the effects of cold.

As has been said, this is not new research and if it is going to be linked to cost of living and not keeping warm then why not explain how it can all be dealt with.

From the article

In an ideal world we'd all heat the room we're in to at least 18C. When that is not possible, Prof Bailey says "it's like preparing for a mountaineering expedition".
His tips are:
focus on clothes that provide good insulation such as those made of wool
gloves and warm socks are more important than a hat (but a woolly hat will help too)
switch foods to a higher carbohydrate diet
generate more body heat by moving around and not just sitting in a chair and watching TV.

[Bike Breaker]

Didn't someone (Japan?) do response to cold tests on PoWs? Stuck them in ice baths etc. Don't suppose they could do that sort of thing now.

Perhaps not now but about 25 years ago, Professor Nancy Rothwell gave the Royal Institution Christmas lectures. One of them was about surviving in heat and cold, in which she did tests on one of her students by sitting him in a bath of cold water and taking temperatures of parts on his body. I don't think she got around to effects on thinking, though.
I know if I get very cold I fall asleep.

[JackyJoll]

I once rode a motorbike out of the camp gates at -15°C spent two weeks playing soldiers, riding the bike most days and rode back into camp at -12°C. During the two weeks, I measured -26°C and my radio operators, stuck up on the rim of a quarry measured -32°C. We were living in tents or the cabs/backs of trucks. No-one got hypothermia, frostbite or hospitalised. I'll give you one guess why.

The rumour is that you spent two weeks bumming each other and the friction kept you warm.

Let’s just say “they huddled.”

[Mussels]

No, it's about the effects that cold has on the brain and body.

He's invited me to his laboratory to explore the impact of cold homes on our bodies

There's the problem, the BBC said it was the latter but they did the former. The experiment had very little to do with living in a cold home.

[Yambo]

The rumour is that you spent two weeks bumming each other and the friction kept you warm.

Yeah, just a rumour mate. It was that cold, everything had shrunk down to just a bit bigger than a Royal Signals big dick.

[Count Steer]

When I try to count the dancing angels on this pinhead, they keep moving.

It appears the experiments looked at the effects of being cold. In this instance they used a home as the test room.

[irie]

No, it's about the effects that cold has on the brain and body.

He's invited me to his laboratory to explore the impact of cold homes on our bodies

There's the problem, the BBC said it was the latter but they did the former. The experiment had very little to do with living in a cold home.

The BBC has its own political agenda. It was BBC scaremongering which is targeted at creating enough hysteria to provoke changes in government policy that the BBC wants to see.