Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

[mjr]

The van will be on the road for several hours, often going up and down the same bits of road several times as it delivers to customers in different time slots. The groceries for Mr. Hughes may have passed close to his front door several times before his time slot arrives and the driver knocks on his door. The time slot issue prevents an efficient route being used. I've seen a Tesco van go down our cul-de-sac twice in the space of one evening, the same driver delivering to two customers in different time slots. One of those customers would have had their groceries brought to within metres of their front door, then taken away for a few hours and brought back for delivery at the right time slot.

Yes, but as long as their goods haven't done the full trip back to the town (or more likely to edge of the town, possibly the far edge) to the shop with no mitigation, it's still going to have caused less pollution than Mr Hughes's old smoker going there and back itself. Carrying Mr Hughes's goods around during other deliveries is minimal relative to moving the weight of a motor vehicle itself, much like the weight of a bike is minimal compared to what it carries.

I agree that the time slot limitation prevents the most efficient route, but the route can still be more efficient than all the customers swarming in a suboptimal manner. I hope that we will see customers who can help optimisation by allowing a larger time slot being rewarded for doing so with lower delivery charges or other incentives.

Whilst I hate visiting supermarkets I don't trust the supermarkets to select my produce. I eat a lot of veg and when I go to the shop I select the best veg. sometimes the quality is bad so I'll chose something else.

Unless you're stuck for time, why would you trust supermarkets even to supply produce? But if you've enough time to wander a shop, maybe you've enough time to visit villages that still have farms either with their own shops or supplying village shops (you can often recognise them by the less slickly presented fresh produce and lower prices than the distress-shopping ones), plus there's an at-least-weekly market in each of the market towns.

I'd love to use them but fresh stuff is the driving thing behind more frequent visits. Long lasting and bulk stuff I tend to get when I have time for a big (occasional) stock-up and it's the fresh stuff that forces more frequent visits

Throwing some fresh fruit and veggies in the basket/bag as you pass the shop on the way home is one of the delights of cycling. I was talking about deliveries as an alternative for the bulk-buy stuff you can't or don't want to lug. I'm wary of using it for fresh stuff too.

Why have supermarkets with thousands of items to choose from and try and choose from a screen when you can stroll through and see the goods for real.

Is that a trick question? Online shopping allows you to order what you want and compare prices easily, whereas stores are designed to try to mislead you into buying the variants that are "best" for the retailer. I don't particularly want to see a bag of oats "for real" - it's a bag of oats and I've seen them before.

As for the emissions? As often as not I'll stop on the way home, so no extra emissions. So for me online shopping might pollute more.

Well, the stop-off-shop isn't a major concern in this regard, but many people seem to make trips just to go shopping.

[irc]

I don't particularly want to see a bag of oats "for real" - it's a bag of oats and I've seen them before.

I don't just buy oats. Not everything is standard. Buying meat for example - every cut is different. Maybe the bakery will have some nice fresh bread?

As for the emissions? I'm flying to San Francisco for a holiday later on this year. Whether or not I drive to the shop myself or have a store employee drive for me is not going to make a massive difference either way to my carbon footprint this year

[Mark R]

Still illegal levels of pollution. Ten days before further legal action. http://www.clientearth.org/news/latest- ... ution-3166

It would be nice to think our lovely government are worried about the prospect of facing more legal action. Sadly they don't seem to give a damn.

Prioritising the profits of the auto industry over public health protection might not be exactly a war crime but it would be nice if the ministers responsible suffered some personal consequences. Instead it's a gold plated public service pension for them and any fines imposed are passed on to the taxpayer

By the way a person's carbon footprint has very little to do with air pollution at a local level...

[mjr]

I don't particularly want to see a bag of oats "for real" - it's a bag of oats and I've seen them before.

I don't just buy oats. Not everything is standard. Buying meat for example - every cut is different. Maybe the bakery will have some nice fresh bread?

That doesn't bother me because I like food, so meat comes from a butcher (King's, Sargeant's or Van Pelt) and bread is baked at home or occasionally bought from a baker (Norbury's). Most supermarkets don't have bakeries - their in-store facilities were dubbed "loaf-tanning salons" and part of a "Great British Fake Off" by Sustain (the alliance for better food and farming) a few years ago http://www.sustainweb.org/realbread/sup ... ore_bakery

As for the emissions? I'm flying to San Francisco for a holiday later on this year. Whether or not I drive to the shop myself or have a store employee drive for me is not going to make a massive difference either way to my carbon footprint this year

We were discussing pollution more than carbon footprint. I trust you're not taking off along your town's high street?

[RickH]

There's a recent item on the BBC News website that is relevant to discussion here - How much diesel pollution am I breathing in?

Rick.

[reohn2]

There's a recent item on the BBC News website that is relevant to discussion here - How much diesel pollution am I breathing in?

Rick.

That article seems to suggest the best thing for human health in a city/town environment is to ban diesel engined vehicles, but better still ban all ICE powered vehicles where slow moving traffic is inevitable,unless absolutely necessary and even then only at times when footfall is lightest.

The surprising thing was the count when on a diesel train ,electric it seems is the way to go,the sooner the better.

EDITED for typos

[mercalia]

"People are increasingly being warned about the dangers of diesel pollution, but how much are we actually exposed to? Tim Johns tried to find out."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35717927

"On my commute, cycling to and from the train station in Bedford gave me a reading of 3.7.

Cycling to and from the office at the other end in central London, my exposure rose to 6.5. That's a stark reflection of the far higher level of traffic in central London and other major cities."

but dont travel by diesel train, hang around stations or use black cabs!!!1

"There's one other astonishing measurement I recorded which I haven't mentioned yet. On the London Underground my device gave me a reading of 77.8."

or the tube

[geocycle]

There's a recent item on the BBC News website that is relevant to discussion here - How much diesel pollution am I breathing in?

Rick.

That article seems to suggest the best thing for human health in a city/town environment is to ban diesel engined vehicles, but better still ban all ICE powered vehicles from them where slow moving is inevitable unless necessary and then only at times when footfall is lightest.

The surprising thing was the count when on a diesel train ,electric it seems is the way to go,the sooner the better.

Yes, I was very surprised about the train. I suppose much of the pollution is recycled from the tracks rather than just from the specific journey. It also wasn't clear to me whether they had really just been counting combusted fine particles or whether the totals measured included fines from brake discs and similar which can be about 50% of the urban totals.

[Vorpal]

Yes, I was very surprised about the train. I suppose much of the pollution is recycled from the tracks rather than just from the specific journey. It also wasn't clear to me whether they had really just been counting combusted fine particles or whether the totals measured included fines from brake discs and similar which can be about 50% of the urban totals.

The sensors used for these sorts of studies don't distinguish between different types of particles.

[Tonyf33]

I found this which i thought quite interesting http://healthyair.org.uk/healthiest-tra ... ion-video/
Where the unit is placed when cycling should be pertinent, having it low9er) down doesn't represent the same as when you're breathing in the air at head level given how heavy the damaging particles are so i would expect cyclists ingestion to be even lower than reported.

[PDQ]

I see it as a huge failure of sucessive govts that our railway system remains largely unelectrified.
The benefits are so enormous.
This report really underlines how filthy diesel trains are.

[reohn2]

I see it as a huge failure of sucessive govts that our railway system remains largely unelectrified.
The benefits are so enormous.
This report really underlines how filthy diesel trains are.

The reason we aren't 'all electric'(or very nearly)is the same reason we won't ban or restrict ICE powered vehicles in our cities,especially dirty diesel powered buses* and cabs,and continually fall short of pollution levels.
More dirt more profit,and all the while we store up health problems for the future like a ticking time bomb.
Cancer,COPD,Asthma,etc,etc.....


* a couple of years ago chatting to the MOT examiner I was told by him that buses are only tested for Co2 and NoX levels on tickover as it'd been deemed to expensive to test at higher rev ranges in case the enngine blew,he was unconvinced of the validity of the claim.
Buses HGV's and taxis remain the dirtiest vehicles on the roads.
I've no difficulty believing diesel powered trains are the same.

[PDQ]

The reason we aren't 'all electric'(or very nearly)is the same reason we won't ban or restrict ICE powered vehicles in our cities,especially dirty diesel powered buses* and cabs,and continually fall short of pollution levels.
More dirt more profit,and all the while we store up health problems for the future like a ticking time bomb.
Cancer,COPD,Asthma,etc,etc.....


* a couple of years ago chatting to the MOT examiner I was told by him that buses are only tested for Co2 and NoX levels on tickover as it'd been deemed to expensive to test at higher rev ranges in case the enngine blew,he was unconvinced of the validity of the claim.
Buses HGV's and taxis remain the dirtiest vehicles on the roads.
I've no difficulty believing diesel powered trains are the same.

Yes quite so.
If I might expand on my point.
Above all it is important that we get public transport methods as clean as possible.
I personally don't see why a good return cannot be made using electric trains.
But the will doesn't seem to exist.

Vast figures were quoted recently to electrify one of the major southern routes; it sounded like someone was troughing it to me.
Other countries mangage to do it fine. The price of copper has dropped enormously now(AFAIK); what an opportunity!

The greatest advantage as I see it is the ability to run the rail network on a variety of energy sources, wind, solar, hydro, wave; anything.
Electricity is so fantastic at driving motors. The torque is tremendous. Quiet and fast.
Plus no energy usage or pollution when stationary (clean air in stations) and even the recovery of some energy back to the powerline using regenerative braking. Wow!

[RickH]

Vast figures were quoted recently to electrify one of the major southern routes; it sounded like someone was troughing it to me.
Other countries mangage to do it fine. The price of copper has dropped enormously now(AFAIK); what an opportunity!

Copper will only be a tiny fraction of the cost (the overhead conductors are almost certainly steel cable rather than copper anyway).

They have been preparing the line near us (Manchester to Preston) for electrification for a couple of years now. Because overhead electric power means greater clearance above the track is needed, the work has involved completely replacing the vast majority of bridges over the track. I can think of at least 7 bridges they replaced in the 11 mile stretch between Bolton & Chorley, including ones such as farm access, so more than just the road network. Plus they have had to rebore the Farnworth tunnel the other side of Bolton. All this while trying to maintain some sort of service & not cause too much traffic disruption.

I'm all for electrification of the rail network but recognise that it is a major civil engineering job, not just stringing a few wires around.

Rick.

[PDQ]

I never said it was a small job.

But actually for large streches of track it IS just a question of "stringing a few wires around". More or less.
Plus buying and manufacturing new locos etc!!

And apparantly steel price is at an all time low too.
Never a better moment.
A railway system that is future proof.

There's a rub here with the infrastructure too.
Someone should have had the foresight to put the bridges in high enough in the first place. Did they think?

On the continent I travel on double decker electric trains through tunnels at least a century old! How come??