S.L. #1. Probably because the accusation isn’t true.
S.L. #2. My point is purely technical, and you may consider it irrelevant.
The bodies do not contribute to the heating of the hospitals, since their combustion requires more energy than they contribute.
_______________________________________
Ahhh, I understand now. You make a pedantic retort to a reader’s reaction to the horror to the NHS admitted and we’re off to tricycle races about the technical aspects of crematoria efficiency and how poorly the human corpse burns. Rather beside the main point though. The question asked was, “what accusation?”
Simple two words. Unanswered.
Almost amusing. Don’t get caught watering down the sherry in the faculty lounge. Ta-ta
My real point, as expressed in several posts of this thread, is that the horror is the killing, not the method of disposal of the body, or whether the waste heat of cremation/incineration is used for some other useful purpose.
I suppose we get (understandably) wearied with trying to cut through the wall of euphemism erected around abortion. So we react with "horror" to what is by any reasonable standard no big deal. But it's a new revelation, and not "old news." Maybe it will cut through the wall for somebody somewhere.
But the horror of the Holocaust was the mass killing, not the fact that some of the bodies were somewhat inefficiently cremated. Had the SS used waste heat from the crematoria to heat their barracks, I fail to see why we should consider this adding much to the horror with which we should view the process.