Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

[squeaker]

New report from the RCP and the RCPCH

[MikeF]

These include:

Not more bureaucracy? Isn't that why there's Brexit campaign.

No mention of the fuel tanks flying above us all day and night.

[pwa]

Life is full of compromises and trade-offs and I suppose poisoning ourselves with noxious fumes is a price we pay for our fast paced way of life. We need to get those goods to the shops, ASAP. We need to get to work. All generating particulates and gases that harm us. One of the worst things you can do, perhaps ironically, is catch a train. It seems that Birmingham New Street station (and presumably others) has dangerous levels of diesel particulates.

So that is where we are. The question is where we go from here. Awareness of the issue is greater than ever, so I think there will now be some policy changes and, eventually, corrective action. But I think change will be gradual rather than sudden. Economic reality will ensure that.

In the meantime I will try not to walk and cycle alongside queues of stationary traffic. I will try not to use the car more than I need to and I won't fly. I rarely use trains anyway. I will continue to hold my breath when a particularly smokey vehicle goes past. And I will hope for the best.

[irc]

Meanwhile despite the "40,000 deaths "attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution " death rates continue to fall and life expectancy continues to rise. Glasgow tenements used to be black with soot in the days of coal fires. Apart from traffic choked streets the air quality in cities may be better than it was a few decades ago. Though this may be going in reverse with the increasing popularity of woodburning stoves.

Emissions from domestic wood burning are increasing in the UK. They accounted for 17% of PM2.5 emissions in 2013, only marginally less than the 18% from all road transport.[3]

fine particles (PM2.5) are believed to affect more people than any other pollutant, with chronic exposure causing the most deaths from serious disease.[6] The estimate of 29,000 UK deaths from air pollution is for PM2.5 (not NOx) pollution.[7]

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-0


It was a big policy mistake using tax breaks to encourage diesel engined cars though. Diesel emissions are worse than petrol.

As I've said before in the Glasgow areas the streets with the highest measured air pollution are mainly bus and taxi traffic. So more public transport isn't the answer. Every place may be different. For Glasgow I'd bring back bus regulation and ban companies running routes from one side of the city to the other via the city centre. A free bus service doing a loop from one end of the city centre to the other could link with the services leaving the city.

[reohn2]

The pollution is local,ie;city and town centres or busy routes with lots of pedestrians and cyclists about.
Surely the way forward is to identify the most polluting vehicles such as PSV,HGV's,and other motorised vehicles banning them from streets where possible when there's there's high footfall.
Deliveries can be made at those times ie;late evening,night time,etc,diesel taxis and buses can be phased out over a period with incentives,and other non essential motor vehicles banned altogether in favour of clean public transport by park and ride schemes.
Where there's a will there's a way but me thinks this time next week it'll be forgotten for more 'pressing' matters
It's very similar to smoking,smokers know the answer to their problem,but the addiction is all too frequently more favourable than the 'cure'

[al_yrpal]

What is needed in City Centres that are heavily polluted by bus and delivery vehicles is to insist that they are hybrids running only on electricity in polluted areas. Also ban wood burners in smokeless zones, they produce lots of cancerous tar in the smoke.
Electric taxis and electric cars only. But.. Bikes are welcome of course. The technology is there why not just phase it in applying ever increasing polution taxes to encourage switching. Better than killing people, albeit slowly.

Al

[reohn2]

........ Better than killing people, albeit slowly.

Al

Not to mention those people's suffering over a long period,and the cost to the nation in health services.

[nosmarbaj]

When looking at pollution by PSVs, you need to consider the amount of noxious stuff per passenger, compared to other means of transport. If a bus causes 5x as much pollution as a car, but is carrying 30 passengers, it's still much better than 15 cars carrying 2 people each. (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to reduce pollution by buses, but just banning buses might be short-sighted.)

[reohn2]

When looking at pollution by PSVs, you need to consider the amount of noxious stuff per passenger, compared to other means of transport. If a bus causes 5x as much pollution as a car, but is carrying 30 passengers, it's still much better than 15 cars carrying 2 people each. (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to reduce pollution by buses, but just banning buses might be short-sighted.)

On reading my post again I apologise for misleading anyone I meant replacing diesel buses with cleaner vehicles such as electric.
Though I do take your point that more people per vehicle is a big step in the right direction.

[Mark R]

The problem in this country is this ingrained idea that buses, taxis and trains have to be powered with diesel engines. It's nonsense of course, the government could phase out diesel public transport with a stroke of a pen (and give the economy a nice stimulus at the same time). Won't happen under the tories. Too many vested interests to be pandered to...

[Tangled Metal]

When looking at pollution by PSVs, you need to consider the amount of noxious stuff per passenger, compared to other means of transport. If a bus causes 5x as much pollution as a car, but is carrying 30 passengers, it's still much better than 15 cars carrying 2 people each. (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to reduce pollution by buses, but just banning buses might be short-sighted.)

You've just confused me there. Buses cause 5x the pollution of cars, carried 30 people and assuming 2.people per car then that does not equate to 15 cars but 3. Reason you need to take into account the 5x pollution.

30÷5 (increased emissions over car) =6 people ÷2 people per car = 3

Still better but your maths is out I believe (sorry I'm a bit pedantic). Your point is very much valid as I'd expect the pollution per person to have a much greater difference than the figures in your post. Point valid, maths didn't work.

BTW I believe there was something on BBC a while back about pollution dropping off quick down side streets. I think this programme also describes hot spots. New street station being one. Didn't surprise me at all considering it's lower and IIRC the west coast line isn't electrified yet so diesels still passing through this pinch point station in the west and Midlands. It's a really important station outside of London and I believe it's nearly at maximum capacity which even London ones aren't quite as bad.

BTW did that programme paint the issue as only a town/city problem or were rural areas mentioned as having hot spots too? I got the impression from the little I watched and previews that the hot spots came and went.

[nosmarbaj]

When looking at pollution by PSVs, you need to consider the amount of noxious stuff per passenger, compared to other means of transport. If a bus causes 5x as much pollution as a car, but is carrying 30 passengers, it's still much better than 15 cars carrying 2 people each. (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to reduce pollution by buses, but just banning buses might be short-sighted.)

You've just confused me there. Buses cause 5x the pollution of cars, carried 30 people and assuming 2.people per car then that does not equate to 15 cars but 3. Reason you need to take into account the 5x pollution.

30÷5 (increased emissions over car) =6 people ÷2 people per car = 3

Still better but your maths is out I believe (sorry I'm a bit pedantic). Your point is very much valid as I'd expect the pollution per person to have a much greater difference than the figures in your post. Point valid, maths didn't work.

You'd need 15 cars to carry the 30 bus passengers. The 15 cars in total would cause 3x the pollution of 1 bus. Maths is correct, apologies for lack of clarity.

(I have no idea if the 5x figure for pollution by a diesel bus is typical, or out by a large factor. Also no idea of average passengers per bus, and per car, though I'm pretty sure someone will have done some research - bus companies should have a good idea of their loading factor.)

[Psamathe]

On the general impact of air pollution, it is a good illustration of the failings of society and our leaders. We know the cause of the problem; we know the solution; we know how to implement the solution. The only thing stopping us are the failings of our leaders.

If a terrorist attack killed one tenth of those numbers in the UK in a single year there would be a massive outcry and we'd be remembering and having memorial days for decades over such a disaster. But air pollution killing such high numbers and our politicians do ... nothing. Instead they spend ages designing laws to invade our privacy, to snoop on us at every opportunity (and more), etc. yet do nothing about the far greater threat to the safety of the population.

Ironic how it is actually probably the EU that is the main driving force trying to push the UK government to take some action over this, and yet now we are talking about leaving that organisation (and I guess that would put a quick end to that pressure to improve things).

Ian

[MikeF]

According to this Government site "In 2013, domestic and international transport accounted for 26% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions." I slightly puzzled by what international transport in the UK means and it appears to exclude aircraft as well. If so that figure is an understated.

And noise seems to refer only to engine noise and does not include tyre noise.

And this page concludes "There is no easy technical way to reduce CO2 and other emissions. The best way is to use the car only when it is necessary. For example, instead of using it for short journeys, consider walking or taking public transport where possible. Try planning journey routes to avoid congestion, combining trips, or perhaps car sharing."

A cycle doesn't seem to be an option then? Hence we have the roads with poor facilities.

(notice the site has been hacked, but apparently not the above pages)

[reohn2]

On the general impact of air pollution, it is a good illustration of the failings of society and our leaders. We know the cause of the problem; we know the solution; we know how to implement the solution. The only thing stopping us are the failings of our leaders.

Who are in the pockets of the people would have us carry on the status quo until there's more profit in something else.

If a terrorist attack killed one tenth of those numbers in the UK in a single year there would be a massive outcry and we'd be remembering and having memorial days for decades over such a disaster. But air pollution killing such high numbers and our politicians do ... nothing. Instead they spend ages designing laws to invade our privacy, to snoop on us at every opportunity (and more), etc. yet do nothing about the far greater threat to the safety of the population.

So you've got to ask,why do we let it happen?
I have a theory,convenience and a feeling of control,the convenience of the car,whatever the destruction to man and beast,and the feeling of control of our own destiny however misplaced and misappropriated that may be.
We've built a monster we can't control,though some would have us believe we can!

Ironic how it is actually probably the EU that is the main driving force trying to push the UK government to take some action over this, and yet now we are talking about leaving that organisation (and I guess that would put a quick end to that pressure to improve things).

Ian

Makes you wonder who's pulling the strings and driving(sorry) the out camp doesn't it?
We've built a monster we can control though some would have us believe we can't!