Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

[squeaker]

Quite a good summary of the current mess!

[Mark R]

Wow! It seems there is a serious chance of a diesel ban being implemented in Stuttgart, Germany.

http://www.dw.com/en/diesel-car-ban-likely-in-stuttgart/a-39870235

If it can happen here, not only in the fatherland, but actually in the home city of Mercedes Benz, it can surely happen anywhere

[Mark R]

This has the potential to drive rapid change:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/legal-claims-grow-exposure-at-work-to-toxic-diesel-fumes

Royal Mail among many large firms being sued for knowingly exposing workers to toxic and carcinogenic diesel fumes......unions flagged up the issue and were ignored....this could be massive; on a par with asbestos...watch this space.

[squeaker]

This has the potential to drive rapid change:

fumeshttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/legal-claims-grow-exposure-at-work-to-toxic-diesel-fumes

Royal Mail among many large firms being sued for knowingly exposing workers to toxic and carcinogenic diesel fumes......unions flagged up the issue and were ignored....this could be massive; on a par with asbestos...watch this space.

Working link

Some confusion between NOx, particulate matter and CO in the Guardian piece. Not sure that the evidence of exposure will be as 'concrete' as that for asbestos...

[Mark R]

Thanks, the link is now fixed

I reckon in the case of bus depots and railway platforms/engine sheds the evidence of exposure will be pretty irrefutable...

When I think of how much pollution I have to breathe cycling behind one diesel bus; being in a depot when they all start up from cold must be absolutely horrendous - a major health hazard.

[Cyril Haearn]

Wow! It seems there is a serious chance of a diesel ban being implemented in Stuttgart, Germany.

http://www.dw.com/en/diesel-car-ban-likely-in-stuttgart/a-39870235

If it can happen here, not only in the fatherland, but actually in the home city of Mercedes Benz, it can surely happen anywhere

I theory there could be a ban, in practice it is very unlikely

More likely are incentives to sell more brand new vehicles and scrap the old ones

Mind, there is a Bundestagswahl next week, it is likely that six parties will get seats

Then anything could happen

[Mark R]

https://www.airqualitynews.com/2017/09/27/air-pollution-billboard-ads-appear-five-cities/

This seems like the sort of initiative I could support. Stoking up a sense of outrage might just embarrass our spineless government into actually doing something


Partly funded by Cycling UK too!

[Ruadh495]

There's a suggestion that Southampton's problem is not road traffic at all, but marine. Apparently the cruise liners are obliged to run their engines while in port to maintain electrical power. Certainly it's interesting that neighboring and more congested Portsmouth is not on the poor air quality list. Portsmouth has the naval port, but less commercial shipping.

Apparently 19 of the worlds largest container ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the world put together. That's mostly out at sea, but they do come into port somewhere, and that somewhere is Southampton.

That would be the ships bringing the new electric cars and hybrids from the Far East...

[al_yrpal]

Mr Khan now has London's woodburners firmly in his sights...about time.

Al

[Mark R]

While there is no doubt that emissions from shipping are a disaster for air quality in Southampton (and globally) it shouldn't be cited as a reason to let road transport 'off the hook'.

When it comes to street level air pollution, the areas with the highest pollution levels are generally the areas blighted by traffic. This is backed up by hard data. Therefore it seems pretty reasonable to put a billboard like this next to a busy road in order to raise awareness of the issue with actual polluters.

I'd love to see more of this sort of thing.

Similar billboards have been deployed in Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester. I don't know why they didn't include Bristol - the air pollution there is horrible - and its not from shipping.

That would be the ships bringing the new electric cars and hybrids from the Far East...

Except the best selling electric car in the UK is produced in Sunderland....

[Mark R]

Mr Khan now has London's woodburners firmly in his sights...about time.

Al

Its not as good as it sounds unfortunately

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41439268

from the BBC report:

A spokesman for Mr Khan said the proposals would include "very small zones to curb pollution caused by wood-burning stoves" by 2025.

2025? 7 years time? Very small zones?? This shows exactly how much regard they have for public health...

The 'right' to pollute your neighbours' air must be respected. This is a free country after all

[mjr]

Its not as good as it sounds unfortunately

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41439268

from the BBC report:

A spokesman for Mr Khan said the proposals would include "very small zones to curb pollution caused by wood-burning stoves" by 2025.

2025? 7 years time? Very small zones?? This shows exactly how much regard they have for public health...

Well, probably, especially as they already have powers under the Clean Air Act that could be used if this was a real significant problem. It would be good to have more usage testing (already possible under that Act I think) to encourage people to control the burn by restricting fuel supply rather than air supply (most stove manuals are unhelpful about this IMO) but this is another attempt by the motoring lobby to deflect the blame onto stoves and ships and basically anything except fossil-fuel transport for the next few years until they can switch more new vehicle sales to electricity and simply move the pollution to power stations in less populated areas, isn't it?

[Mark R]

isn't it?

I don't reckon it is. I'm no apologist for the car industry that's for sure!

Saying people just need to learn to use their stoves properly is a bit like saying people just to pump up their car tyres and service their ICEs a bit more often.

Do we really want people installing woodburners en mass in one of the most densely populated parts of the UK?

From a guardian article:

Researchers at King’s College London have found that wood-burning in the capital accounts for up to 31% of the city’s particulate pollution, up from 10% in the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/29/wood-burning-stove-ban-will-not-be-enforced-against-householders

If that is true (King's College counts as a reputable source right?) we need action far sooner than 2025. Why should people risk having their health ruined because of some unnecessary fad?

[meic]

Why should people risk having their health ruined because of some unnecessary fad?

To keep houses warm, it seems like a much more fundamental and necessary need than making soft yellow toys to be given out by McDonalds for children to throw out of the car window on the way home*.

* A typical example of modern British consumerism which makes the economy tick and so is considered vital and necessary.

[mjr]

Saying people just need to learn to use their stoves properly is a bit like saying people just to pump up their car tyres and service their ICEs a bit more often.

They should do that as well, but in many parts of the country, wood-burning replaces oil-burning and oil use brings a whole different set of problems with it.

From a guardian article:

Researchers at King’s College London have found that wood-burning in the capital accounts for up to 31% of the city’s particulate pollution, up from 10% in the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/29/wood-burning-stove-ban-will-not-be-enforced-against-householders

If that is true (King's College counts as a reputable source right?) we need action far sooner than 2025. Why should people risk having their health ruined because of some unnecessary fad?

At least three missing steps in the logic there are:
1. how much of that 31% of wood-burning is domestic rather than commercial/industrial?
2. how much of it is already illegal under the Clean Air Act which London apparently isn't enforcing?
3. what would those places do if not burn wood?

Compare this to transport in London, where cycling, walking and public transport are ready-to-use alternatives that would be much less polluting than private motoring. Which should be the easier win and the higher priority?