Warning as heat pumps could expose Brits to killer germs under Ed Miliband's green energy drive
The danger comes from legionella bacteria in heat pumps, a top adviser to the Net Zero Secretary has suggested.
2
Dr Matthew Aylott, who works in Red Ed's department, said cases were rare.
But he added more research was needed to determine a 'disinfection strategy'.
His warning came after a scathing watchdog study declared not enough was being done by the Government to reduce the risk of exposure to heat pump germs.
The Health and Safety Executive study, seen by The Sun, said: 'There are concerns that these systems are susceptible to microbial contamination because they hold water at lower temperatures.'
Heat pumps often keep water at about 50C to save energy.
But legionella bacteria thrive between 25C and 45C — so can do so when systems are not hot enough to kill them off.
Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho said: 'Red Ed seems determined to complete his mad dash to Net Zero — even if it means exposing Brits to killer germs.'
The Department of Energy and Net Zero said: 'There is no evidence of more health-related issues coming from heat pumps compared to boilers.'
It comes as Mr Miliband's green agenda faces a further backlash, with households being forced to pay solar farms to switch off on sunny days as the grid cannot cope.
For the first time, solar operators such as EDF Renewables and Octopus Energy have been handed payments to reduce output — with the costs added to energy bills, research by the Renewable Energy Foundation revealed.
Keir Starmer's deranged drive for Net Zero with eco-zealot Ed Miliband is a threat to UK's national security- here's why
2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
We banned cigarette ads for the good of public health – fossil fuels must be next
There was a time when doctors in both the United States and the UK were only too happy to promote 'the health benefits of smoking '. From the 1920s right through to the 1950s, actors were taken on to play the part of doctors to promote different cigarette brands, with the companies vying in their claims for the level of support they had among the medical profession, as in 'more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette'. Today, this sounds completely outlandish. But I'm reminded that my own father, an eminent surgeon here in the UK, would have been completely comfortable about these adverts. As someone who smoked cigarettes (and then a pipe) enthusiastically for 60 of his 90-year lifespan, he was slow to embrace the increasingly authoritative research links between smoking and cancer. It was clear to me, as a rebellious teenager, that he was a complete addict. As was my mother. As was my sister. And brother. Unfortunately, many people are still addicted to nicotine today. But it's our addiction to fossil fuels that is causing by far the greatest damage to people and the planet. Improbably, back in 2006, it was the then US president, George W Bush, who acknowledged in his State of the Union address that 'we have a serious problem'. 'America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.' He was particularly concerned about imports from Iran. What comes around … That's why today's debate in Parliament is so important. MPs are discussing a petition calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, much like the existing bans on tobacco advertising. The petition, signed by more than 110,000 people, argues that such advertisements 'encourage the use of products and sponsorship promotes a positive reputation and creates a social licence of trust and acceptability'. The debate reflects growing public concern about the legitimacy of fossil fuel companies sponsoring cultural, sporting and educational events. Societal addiction is even more of a problem than individual addiction. And those whose job it is today to reinforce that collective addiction to fossil fuels – through advertising, public relations, marketing and sponsorship – are no less reprehensible than those agencies which profited so handsomely from promoting cigarettes over many, many decades. It's a surreal situation we find ourselves in. Governments are committed in principle – with varying degrees of ambition, integrity and policy consistency – to transitioning away from fossil fuels, by far the most important priority in terms of getting to grips with the climate crisis. Yet their actions belie that intent at every turn. To cite but one example, government subsidies to fossil fuel companies in 2023 amounted to an astonishing $1.4 trillion. And this is just the tip of the problem, as the level of advertising by fossil fuel companies at the Formula 1 British Grand Prix at Silverstone at the weekend demonstrated. The easiest way to understand the astonishing reach of the fossil fuel incumbency is to see it as a global imperial power, operating in every corner of the Earth, regardless of the political status of countries – whether democracies, autocracies or failing states – subject only to partial and ineffective regulation by those countries once they've been effectively 'captured'. This is achieved by the limitless amounts of money and other inducements the industry has deployed throughout that time to persuade politicians where their best interests lie. Equally limitless amounts of money are available for marketing and advertising campaigns of every description, for sponsorship arrangements and for high‑profile charitable activities. What is even more extraordinary is that none of these companies has ever, at any stage in their history, been required to pay for the social and environmental costs incurred in bringing their products to market. Governments have simply permitted them to 'externalise' the cost of all those billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean those costs disappear: it means that they're paid by individuals and communities affected by their often grotesque polluting activities, by the environment – in the form of pollution of soil, water and forests – and, of course, by future generations. Which is why Elisa Morgera, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, is now urging the UN General Assembly to support a total ban on both lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel industry. She is pressing for its continuing, pernicious misrepresentations about the reality of the climate crisis to be criminalised. Emphasising the obligation that all states have to inform their citizens about climate change, she could not have been clearer that the 'fossil-fuel playbook' needs to be completely shredded. At the heart of her report to the UN General Assembly is the conviction that continuing to promote fossil fuels – directly and indirectly – represents an astonishing betrayal of young people today. There's never been an incumbency as pervasive and powerful as this one. It's not just the companies themselves, comprehensively dominating the visible foreground, that make up this incumbency, but just behind the scenes there is an even more extensive network of financial and professional interests that provides the funding; facilities; insurance, legal and consultancy services; and the vast array of transport, infrastructure, logistics and retail businesses that distribute and sell the industry's products. Whichever way you look at it, this is indeed such a shocking example of intergenerational injustice that it's hard to believe the level of invective young climate campaigners are subjected to simply for trying to get today's 'grown‑ups' to start paying a bit more attention. Any suggestion that the industries primarily responsible for these current and future bills should now be held to account – both politically and financially – is still peremptorily dismissed as unworldly or, worse yet, as prejudicial to shareholder interests and to capitalism itself. We must start to address these issues. A ban on fossil fuel advertising – which is already being adopted by cities like Edinburgh and Sheffield, and by other local authorities – would be an ideal first step. This would mean, for example, ending fossil fuel sponsorship of our leading cultural institutions – including BP's long-standing sponsorship of the British Museum and Science Museum; its arrangement with the Tate galleries ended in 2017 after protests by climate change activists. It would also put a stop to advertising by oil and gas companies on the London Underground. Only then can we say we're getting serious about undertaking the much‑needed total transformation in our relationship with the fossil fuel industry.
The Sun
32 minutes ago
- The Sun
I thought my leg ached from walking too much but doctors asked me a chilling question and uncovered the sinister truth
WAKING up in the night in pain, Megan Skalska blamed her aches on walking too much. At the age of just 23, she was fit and healthy and had no reason to suspect anything sinister. 8 8 The first signs that something was wrong came in October last year. But soon after the ' bone deep' pains began to disturb her sleep, Megan noticed a lump on the left side of her hip. 'At first I just thought it was a swelling,' she says. 'But I decided it would be best to get it checked.' It was a decision that could prove to save her life. She went straight to hospital where she had an X-ray and was sent home in the early hours of the morning. Later that day, at about 7am she received the phone call that would change her life, forever. 'The first question they asked me was: 'Do you have any cancer in the family?'' Megan tells Sun Health. 'That's when I knew that something wasn't right, especially because they got back to me so quickly.' After an MRI scan, a CT scan, another X-ray and lots of blood tests, Megan's mind was put at ease when medics told her the lump was a benign tumour. But her relief soon disappeared and was replaced by panic, when it emerged that doctors feared the tumour had a 'malignant transformation'. Video explaining the different types of bone cancer, symptoms and treatments Megan, from Sittingbourne in Kent, was sent for a consultation at the specialist Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore. She was told that doctors suspected the tumour was cancerous, but that they wouldn't know until they'd conducted a biopsy. 'By that point, everything felt surreal,' she says. 'It was inexplicable; I thought everything was against me. 'The doctor prepared me for the worst, but my doctor was really positive, which helped.' Megan then faced an anxious wait for surgery. Experts made a custom tool to remove the tumour - but by the time the operation took place, the mass had grown so much that it couldn't be used. The surgery on January 28 was long and complicated - and involved surgeons removing half of Megan's hip, but it was a success. 'At first, I was supposed to have a small operation, which would have only had a four-week-long recovery,' she says. 8 8 'But on the day of my operation, I found out that they just kind of went in and removed everything as they probably suspected the cancer was already there. 'The tumour was just growing so quickly at that point.' Being in hospital was harder than Megan thought it would be. She woke from the anaesthetic full of tubes and her recovery was exhausting and long. SURVIVAL MODE 'I thought I'd be in the hospital for three days max, but I ended up being in hospital for three weeks, and I had an epidural in my back for the first week, so I couldn't feel anything from the waist down and couldn't even move my toe, which was pretty scary,' she says. 'Even just sitting up in bed was really difficult. 'Luckily my mum Jo was by my side constantly, which really helped. And the nurses were super supportive in getting me everything I needed.' On Valentine's Day Megan was finally told she had stage 1 chondrosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer. Initially she felt numb. 'I thought that my mental health would really suffer throughout the cancer diagnosis,' she says. 'But oddly, I think the survivor mode just kicked in, and I persevered. 'I just thought there's no point in me asking, 'Why has this happened to me?' 8 'I had to keep positive because being sad wasn't going to change anything. So I just kind of stayed strong through it all.' Before her diagnosis, Megan says she was a 'lot more emotional" and would 'cry over nothing at all'. But with her cancer diagnosis came a sense of perspective, she tells Sun Health. 'I think it made me realise that my worries previously weren't real worries at all,' she adds. 'I wanted to stay strong for my family and friends, as well as myself. 'It could've been a lot worse.' Aside from facing her cancer diagnosis, Megan was also haunted by a fear that her leg would have to be amputated. 'I Googled chondrosarcoma and just saw lots of girls having their legs amputated,' she says. 'That was really scary and I was having panic attacks. It's frightening to think about losing part of your body.' Three days after her diagnosis Megan was able to go home without any further treatment. Despite having to learn to walk again, eager to move on from the traumatic illness and in desperate need of distraction, she started a new marketing job one week after surgery. 8 8 'Going through this has totally given me a new perspective on life,' she says. 'I worry less about the small things. 'I now realise I didn't really have any problems until I had health problems. 'It was really scary looking at survival rates and the percentage chances of the cancer coming back.' Megan has been told that she has a 30 per cent chance of her cancer coming back. But rather than focus on that statistic, the 23-year-old is holding on to the fact it means there is a 70 per cent chance it won't. As soon as she was given the green light from her doctors, she grabbed her crutches and booked holidays to Barcelona and Morocco. And tomorrow she will hold a fundraiser to raise money for the Bone Cancer Research Trust. Reflecting on her ordeal, Megan says she is so grateful she went to A&E when she did, and she wants to encourage others to go straight to the doctor if they fear something is wrong. 'There's no point waiting – if I had waited, I could have lost my leg or even my life.' she says. 'If your body doesn't feel right, get it checked. 'It's just so important not to let doctors and your GP turn you away because you're young, because when something's not right, it's not right. 'You never think it's going to happen to you, but just because you're young, that doesn't mean you're immune. 'I am worried about it coming back. But I'm just super grateful to even have that fear. 'Because so many cancer patients don't have the positive outcome that I had. 'I'm still in physio and I have a huge scar on my hip, but I've just kind of accepted that. 'It's nothing to be embarrassed about and I was happy to wear my bikini in Barcelona and not give it another thought. 'It shows me who I am, what I've been through, and how strong I am. I'm still here, and that's something to appreciate. 'I appreciate everything these days.'
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour refuses to shield state pension from ‘retirement tax'
Labour has rejected a petition calling for the personal allowance to be raised to protect state pensioners from income tax. The Treasury said the tax-free personal allowance would not be raised for retirees – a move campaigners have called a 'betrayal' of the elderly. Millions of Britain's poorest retirees face being dragged into the tax net when the state pension breaches the £12,570 tax-free threshold in a move which has been dubbed the 'retirement tax'. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has committed to keeping income tax thresholds frozen until at least 2028, a policy introduced under the Tories. Last week she refused to rule out extending the freeze beyond this date. However, the new 'full' state pension of £11,973 a year, paid to 12.9 million people aged 66 and over, is set to breach as early as next year. The triple lock ensures that the state pension rises each April by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5pc. If average earnings continue to grow at their current rate of 5.2pc, then the state pension will exceed the tax-free allowance for the first time next year. This will mean pensioners – many of whom rely solely on the state pension for their income – will be taxed at 20pc on the portion above £12,570. In March, the Silver Voices campaign group submitted a petition with 125,000 signatures to Number 10 and the Chancellor calling on the Government to lift the personal allowance threshold for pensioners and to commit to raising it in line with future triple lock rises. However, the Treasury last week rejected the idea of 'exempting the state pension and other benefits' from income tax as doing so would 'add complexity to the tax system'. Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, said the 'inadequate' response had 'stuck two fingers up' at pensioners who felt 'insulted and betrayed' by the Government. He added: 'The British state pension isn't a king's ransom and it's very difficult to survive on at the moment, even without getting taxed on it. 'Keeping thresholds frozen is a backhanded way of taxing the state pension and triple lock, which is often people's only source of income. 'Extending the freeze to 2030 will make the situation even worse.' The threshold freeze helped to push an extra 2.5 million pensioners into the tax net under the Tories' 14 years in power. Ahead of the general election last year, the Conservatives proposed raising the personal allowance in line with the triple lock for pensioners to shield them from a 'retirement tax'. Analysis by wealth manager Quilter suggests that an extra one million low-income pensioners would be taxed on their state pension if Labour were to extend the freeze until 2030. 'Giving with one hand and taking with the other' Baroness Altmann, a former Tory pensions minister, said: 'Inevitably, if the state pension keeps going up and the threshold doesn't, more and more pensioners are going to pass the threshold with their state pension income alone. 'Those with no other income are increasingly going to find that the Government is giving with one hand and taking with the other. There's likely to be a lot of upset. 'Also, if you only have the state pension, an increase is only going to take you slightly over the threshold by a few pounds, the cost of administering it could well be more than the amount of tax they will collect.' It comes as the former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the Party is 'willing to explore' a new wealth tax of 2pc on assets over £10m. In its response to the campaign, a Treasury spokesman said: 'Exempting the state pension and other benefits from income tax would add complexity to the tax system and those paying higher rates of tax would receive the greatest benefit. 'Individuals earning above the higher rate threshold would benefit more than those with incomes below, and those earning below the personal allowance would not benefit at all. 'It would also be expensive at a time when the Government has inherited a very challenging set of fiscal circumstances.'
