IT IS not unusual for a basically righteous cause to instil such zealous, rigid beliefs in its followers that, unwittingly, the cause risks becoming morally skewed. When reasoned argument and basic morality are ignored in the headlong rush to reach an ideological goal, it is perhaps time to apply a little pressure to the brake before we all plunge headlong into the chasm.
I wonder whether this has become the case with certain environmental policies? While it came too late for comment in last month's issue, the reports of heat problems in three Bradford schools raise a number of concerns.

The National Union of Teachers has claimed that temperatures in the three new pfi-built schools, which rely on natural and mechanical ventilation, have reached 38ºC - a claim denied by the Council - and that three pupils collapsed during the recent heatwave.

In a statement to ACR News, Integrated Bradford, the consortium behind schools' construction, said: 'The Bradford schools are designed to be energy efficient with a combination of natural and mechanical ventilation, to minimise environmental impact. Air conditioning is fitted in the schools in the appropriate places, ie server rooms.'

Cynics might say that what this suggests, is that it is OK for children to collapse from the heat as long as the computers don't fall over. Now, I'm sure that is not what the consortium really meant but it is typical of the muddled thinking that could occur if, in a blinkered rush to to be 'green', people lose touch with reality.

Children might give me the screaming abdabs when I come into contact with the little blighters but, generally speaking, I do still believe that people are far more important than computers and should be treated as such.

I am not in a position to personally comment on the design of the buildings and I am sure, as the consortium says, that all are fully compliant with Building Bulletin guidance and in line with the design criteria. However, according to the NUT the schools incorporate a lot of glass, a feature which is often associated with high heat gains - not something that can normally be dissipated effectively by using ventilation alone.

In fact, leaving the Bradford schools aside, I would go further to say that passive ventilation alone does not work. The laws of physics decree that it cannot work and no one has ever been able to prove to me the contrary.

Sure, it can reduce the air conditioning load of a building, as can good building design, the incorporation of blinds, solar shading, etc. For that reason passive ventilation should be at least considered in any new building, but don't suggest to me that it can ever replace air conditioning because that is patently nonsense.

Back to the schools issue, at a time when the education standards of this country are being increasingly criticised, I would point to an ASHRAE study carried out three years ago which claimed to prove a link between cool, well-ventilated rooms and an increase in student performance.

In addition, despite the advances made in employment law and working conditions since our ancestors spent 25 back-breaking hours a day down at t'mill, there is still no maximum working temperature over and above a vague reference in the Health & Safety At Work Act and The Offices, Shops & Railway Premises Act demanding that workplace temperature must be 'reasonable'.

In the UK, the accepted zone of thermal comfort for most kinds of work lies between 16°-24°C. CIBSE's recommended temperature in offices is 20ºC, while the WHO recommends a maximum working temperature of 24ºC. In recent years, the TUC has called for a maximum working temperature of 30°C, or 27°C for those doing strenuous work, and called for the provision of measures including air conditioning when the heat hits the maximum.

Is it not time to just stop for a moment and take a rational look at what we are doing in the name of the environment before we launch off into some 17th-century-like witch hunt?

Neil Everitt
Editor