"Traffic pollution kills 5,000 a year in UK, says study"

On Apr 19, 8:48*am, Richard McKenzie
wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:53*am, Doug wrote:









Why should motorists be allowed to continue killing people with their
exhaust fumes?

"Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents,
according to a study of UK air quality.

The analysis appears in Environmental Science and Technology, carried
out by Steve Yim and Steven Barrett, pollution experts from MIT in
Massachusetts.

They estimate that combustion exhausts across the UK cause nearly
5,000 premature deaths each year.

The pair also estimate that exhaust gases from aeroplanes cause a
further 2,000 deaths annually.

By comparison, 2010 saw, 1,850 deaths due to road accidents recorded.

Overall, the study's findings are in line with an earlier report by
the government's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants
(COMEAP), which found that air pollution in 2008 was responsible for
about 29,000 deaths in the UK.

The new study arrives at a slightly lower annual figure of 19,000, a
difference the lead author of the COMEAP study, Fintan Hurley,
attributes to differing methodology..."

"...Far more effective, experts say, would be to invest in public
transport, taking cars off the road altogether..."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116


Doug what should we do? no cars or ships or planes, no coal or
electricity.

Who said anything about eliminating them completely? There should be a
significant reduction in the harm caused.

Acknowledge the danger from the mass use of cars instead of trying to
brush it all under the carpet. Probably the best solution, and the one
which is used for other harmful activities such as smoking, is heavy
taxation and prominent health warning stickers on cars.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On Apr 19, 11:21*am, Kim Bolton wrote:
Doug wrote:
Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents,
according to a study of UK air quality.

This was exactly the same type of argument put forward for the
compulsory fitting of catalysers to cars - the rate of asthma among
children was increasing at a headline rate.

Now we have had 20 years of catalysed cars, congestion zones, and
green zones, the number of cases of asthma among children is still
rising.

So...don't believe what you're told.

It now turns out that reduced early exposure to bacteria and viruses
is the cause.

Rubbish! All that does is reduce immunity to various infectious
diseases, not immunity to the effects of air pollution from
combustion.

So, Doug, what's the exact link between 'road pollution' (which
you'll need to define) and the claimed deaths?

The adverse health effects of various emissions are well known, such
as cancer, breathing difficulties, heart disease, strokes, impaired
brain function, diabetes, etc.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On 20/04/2012 06:49, Doug wrote:
On Apr 19, 8:48 am, Richard McKenzie
wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:53 am, wrote:









Why should motorists be allowed to continue killing people with their
exhaust fumes?

"Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents,
according to a study of UK air quality.

The analysis appears in Environmental Science and Technology, carried
out by Steve Yim and Steven Barrett, pollution experts from MIT in
Massachusetts.

They estimate that combustion exhausts across the UK cause nearly
5,000 premature deaths each year.

The pair also estimate that exhaust gases from aeroplanes cause a
further 2,000 deaths annually.

By comparison, 2010 saw, 1,850 deaths due to road accidents recorded.

Overall, the study's findings are in line with an earlier report by
the government's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants
(COMEAP), which found that air pollution in 2008 was responsible for
about 29,000 deaths in the UK.

The new study arrives at a slightly lower annual figure of 19,000, a
difference the lead author of the COMEAP study, Fintan Hurley,
attributes to differing methodology..."

"...Far more effective, experts say, would be to invest in public
transport, taking cars off the road altogether..."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116


Doug what should we do? no cars or ships or planes, no coal or
electricity.

Who said anything about eliminating them completely? There should be a
significant reduction in the harm caused.

Acknowledge the danger from the mass use of cars instead of trying to
brush it all under the carpet. Probably the best solution, and the one
which is used for other harmful activities such as smoking, is heavy
taxation and prominent health warning stickers on cars.

Perhaps all cars should be grey & hidden behind shutters at the dealers.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Doug wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:21 am, Kim Bolton wrote:

It now turns out that reduced early exposure to bacteria and viruses
is the cause.

Rubbish! All that does is reduce immunity to various infectious
diseases, not immunity to the effects of air pollution from
combustion.

How little you know about anything, Doug.

"If someone in your household has allergies or asthma, your first
reaction may be to regularly try to remove irritants like these from
your home. But all that mopping, sweeping, air freshening, and spray
cleaning could actually increase your risk of allergies and asthma. In
fact, young children who are not exposed to allergens and germs in their
early years are at increased risk of developing asthma and allergies
later on
....
The argument that too-clean environments contribute to allergies is
called the "hygiene hypothesis." Generally, the idea is that exposure to
germs and infection helps build the immune system, which can protect
against allergies and asthma.

Researchers have been exploring cleanliness as an allergy cause for
several years. Research results are similar to those published in The
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, which shows that children
who attend daycare are 35 percent less likely than those who stay home
to develop allergies and asthma later in life. The study of 900 infants
showed those who entered daycare between 6 months and 1 year of age had
75 percent less asthma by age 5 than their peers."

http://www.everydayhealth.com/allerg...allergies.aspx

On 20/04/2012 07:07, Doug wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:21 am, Kim wrote:
Doug wrote:
Road pollution is more than twice as deadly as traffic accidents,
according to a study of UK air quality.

This was exactly the same type of argument put forward for the
compulsory fitting of catalysers to cars - the rate of asthma among
children was increasing at a headline rate.

Now we have had 20 years of catalysed cars, congestion zones, and
green zones, the number of cases of asthma among children is still
rising.

So...don't believe what you're told.

It now turns out that reduced early exposure to bacteria and viruses
is the cause.

Rubbish! All that does is reduce immunity to various infectious
diseases, not immunity to the effects of air pollution from
combustion.

Not at all. I had a long conversation with a Professor working on this
subject when I was making medical devices and he was looking for a
donation of equipment to carry out trials. Unfortunately, although I
would have happily provided him with the 1,500 instruments he needed,
funding he also needed from other sources was not forthcoming.

Some forms of infection will only produce antibodies against the
specific disease and will, as you suggest, only provide immunity against
that disease. However, there are diseases where infection causes changes
at the cellular level, which boosts the entire immune system and, it is
thought, thereby reduces the risk of asthma in later life. One such
disease is tuberculosis and the Professor was hoping to give neonates
the BCG vaccination against TB, which has the same effect, and then to
track them for the next 20 years. On a very unscientific level, I was
regularly exposed to TB as a young child and have always had a very
robust immune system.

Colin Bignell

On 20/04/2012 10:51, Kim Bolton wrote:

Doug wrote:

On Apr 19, 11:21 am, Kim wrote:

So, Doug, what's theexact link between 'road pollution' (which
you'll need to define) and the claimed deaths?

The adverse health effects of various emissions are well known, such
as cancer, breathing difficulties, heart disease, strokes, impaired
brain function, diabetes, etc.

That may or may not be so, but I asked for theexact link between
them.

Doug doesn't do exact links. He relies upon the claim that things are
'well known', without actually being able to identify them.

Colin Bignell

On Apr 20, 8:08*am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
[...]
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

'Fraid you're a bit out of touch with the Zeitgeist, Dave old chap.
Bicycling is becoming quite trendy. Not in Lancaster, obviously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/me...mpetitive.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/cc3g2ol

The kind of man who might once have bought a sports car to show off
his status is driving today’s boom in 'premium’ bicycles.

For most of its, admittedly murky, history the bicycle has existed as
a cheap alternative to something else. You didn’t need to put hay or
petrol in it, and it lived happily chained to a drainpipe. Although
cycling has had its useful times, and even times in vogue, it has
never really made the big leap to become one of life’s essential
obligations – the kind of thing a man must do to be taken seriously.

Until now.

Peddling along town and country roads has become the most fashionable
activity in Britain. Bike sales are soaring and the clamour for
distinctive accessories and clothing has created a new breed of savvy
cyclo-entrepreneurs who are re-making cycling’s image. In the past 10
years, bicycle traffic has quadrupled, and the forecast is for growth
and more growth. Halfords, Britain’s biggest bike retailer – it sells
one in four of all bicycles bought – last week announced a continued
hike in sales, especially in “premium” bikes. It may be tempting to
explain all this in terms of the current “on yer bike” mood of
austerity, but the figures suggest that many of us are now lavishing
more money and attention on bicycles than we did on cars.

As tends to be the case where status and gadgetry are involved, men
are shaping the market. Who wants an ordinary sports car when you can
breeze past your mates aboard a £8,250, Italian-made Pinarello Dogma
60.1 Sky, with an asymmetrical carbon frame, electronic shifting
gearset, low-drag paint job and racing wheels?
[...]
Under fire for wrecking the economy, today’s bankers are making a
pronounced tactical switch to two wheels but managing to do it in ways
that still scream “bonus!” The ultimate bike of the moment in the
Square Mile is the £12,000 S-Works McLaren Venge, a collaboration
between the Californian company Specialized and the British Formula
One group.
[...]
How has all this happened? To some extent, Britain is catching up with
the rest of Europe, where the bike has been acceptable mainstream
transport for decades. But something more significant has changed. In
Britain, cycling has long been sniffed at as the forced option of the
working class, rank with images of flat-capped factory hands and straw-
chewing codgers weaving down farm tracks.

This is no longer the case. According to Mintel, the leading retail
analyst, the wealthier people are, the more likely they are to ride
bikes. The sales boom, it says, is being driven by better-off family
men who would once have bought themselves a sports car. ...

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:23:40 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
wrote:

According to Mintel, the leading retail
analyst, the wealthier people are, the more likely they are to ride
bikes.

See Judith... I told you so, and you didn't believe me. Tsk!

On 20/04/2012 16:22, Bertie Wooster wrote:

pensive hamster wrote:

According to Mintel, the leading retail
analyst, the wealthier people are, the more likely they are to ride
bikes.

See Judith... I told you so, and you didn't believe me. Tsk!

A better interpretation of the figures would be to say "less unlikely" rather
than "more likely".

Does it work the other way round? Does higher annual mileage on a bike
correlate positively with higher income, social status and wealth?

On 20/04/2012 11:23, pensive hamster wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:08 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
[...]
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

'Fraid you're a bit out of touch with the Zeitgeist, Dave old chap.
Bicycling is becoming quite trendy. Not in Lancaster, obviously.

Alas it isn't with the majority of the general public;

"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University,

"For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose,
and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a
regular basis."


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University