Survey - London cyclists perception of air pollution/ safety

On 3 May, 17:37, ash wrote:
On 3 May, 10:03, Doug wrote:



On 3 May, 09:14, tim wrote: I guess it was the lucky ones who lived through the Great Smog ! How
many was it that failed to ?

One of the great things about the smog was that it made driving
extremely difficult when you could hardly see your hand in front of
your face. But then, with fewer cars, most of the pollution came from
coal fires in the home and some London power stations, which
fortunately are now extinct.

Campaign for Clean Air in London and the Information Commissioner are
at the Information Tribunal in a weeks time trying to find out what
Boris J and Lord Hunt (Defra) have been keeping from us regarding
their plans to do things to *satisfy Europe and prevent UK being
clobbered with big fines for appalling air quality in London.

Conspiracy theorists can try to guess what is redacted under the big
black scrawl on the released documents attached to the bottom of

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/blog...8/4516369.html

I don't suggest buying a diesel in the near future.

They are always banging on about particulates but its the other toxic
exhaust emissions that also bother me, nasty invisible stuff.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug, will you stop scaremongering people with your tales of motorised
death and distruction in every conceivable way.

As you have been unable to supply any evidence, I'll give some to the
contrary of your eco fascist bull****:-

'The failure to tackle air pollution, a committee of MPs claimed last
week, could be responsible for up to 50,000 fatalities every year. “It
could be taking years off the lives of people at risk,” from asthma
and circulatory orders, said the committee’s chairman Tim Yeo. It
could also cost us a £300 million fine from the European Commission
for failing to meet its stringent clean-air targets.
I have some personal experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of
London where I work – just a mile from the House of Commons – includes
one of the capital’s busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of
cars pour over Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling
the air with their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single
patient with pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from
one year’s end to the next.
The reason is simple enough. The levels of the three main
petrochemical pollutants, sulphur dioxide, ozone and the oxide of
nitrogen are so low as to be scarcely detectable.
It was a different matter in the early Fifties, when the the
concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air reached the dizzying
heights of 1350 parts per billion (ppb) during notorious pea-soup fogs
caused by the burning of fossil fuels. But since the Clean Air Act,
they have fallen dramatically and now hover at about 30ppb,
considerably lower than what would cause symptoms in those with
chronic lung problems.
It is a similar story with ozone and the oxides of nitrogen. An expert
report from a decade ago observed “changes in lung function are
trivial and inconsistent” following exposure to concentrations 10
times higher than that currently recorded.It is depressing (if not
surprising) that MPs should be so keen to spread anxiety on this issue
rather than defend the nation’s interest by telling the European
Commission where it can stuff its £300 million fine'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...anu/7528470/Do...

Are there no trees left to hug in your neck of the woods Doug ?

You have forgotten the carcinogen benzene, for which petrol cars are
mainly responsible and there is no completely safe level for
carcinogens. So you are saying the MPs and the EU are wrong and you
are right? Another point, pollutants are tested individually but not
as cocktails. Since there is obviously a potential health hazard, from
which some could suffer an early death, it is wise to apply the
precautionary principle rather than your cavalier attitude towards
such deaths.

The link between cigarettes and the secondary smoking risk to health
is now widely recognised but the volume of pollutants from a car
exhaust far exceeds that from a cigarette many times over. The only
difference is pragmatic. They can ban people from smoking in certain
areas but for various reasons they can't ban cars.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 3 May, 20:08, Doug wrote:
On 3 May, 17:37, ash wrote:



On 3 May, 10:03, Doug wrote:

On 3 May, 09:14, tim wrote: I guess it was the lucky ones who lived through the Great Smog ! How
many was it that failed to ?

One of the great things about the smog was that it made driving
extremely difficult when you could hardly see your hand in front of
your face. But then, with fewer cars, most of the pollution came from
coal fires in the home and some London power stations, which
fortunately are now extinct.

Campaign for Clean Air in London and the Information Commissioner are
at the Information Tribunal in a weeks time trying to find out what
Boris J and Lord Hunt (Defra) have been keeping from us regarding
their plans to do things to *satisfy Europe and prevent UK being
clobbered with big fines for appalling air quality in London.

Conspiracy theorists can try to guess what is redacted under the big
black scrawl on the released documents attached to the bottom of

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/blog...8/4516369.html

I don't suggest buying a diesel in the near future.

They are always banging on about particulates but its the other toxic
exhaust emissions that also bother me, nasty invisible stuff.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug, will you stop scaremongering people with your tales of motorised
death and distruction in every conceivable way.

As you have been unable to supply any evidence, I'll give some to the
contrary of your eco fascist bull****:-

'The failure to tackle air pollution, a committee of MPs claimed last
week, could be responsible for up to 50,000 fatalities every year. “It
could be taking years off the lives of people at risk,” from asthma
and circulatory orders, said the committee’s chairman Tim Yeo. It
could also cost us a £300 million fine from the European Commission
for failing to meet its stringent clean-air targets.
I have some personal experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of
London where I work – just a mile from the House of Commons – includes
one of the capital’s busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of
cars pour over Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling
the air with their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single
patient with pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from
one year’s end to the next.
The reason is simple enough. The levels of the three main
petrochemical pollutants, sulphur dioxide, ozone and the oxide of
nitrogen are so low as to be scarcely detectable.
It was a different matter in the early Fifties, when the the
concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air reached the dizzying
heights of 1350 parts per billion (ppb) during notorious pea-soup fogs
caused by the burning of fossil fuels. But since the Clean Air Act,
they have fallen dramatically and now hover at about 30ppb,
considerably lower than what would cause symptoms in those with
chronic lung problems.
It is a similar story with ozone and the oxides of nitrogen. An expert
report from a decade ago observed “changes in lung function are
trivial and inconsistent” following exposure to concentrations 10
times higher than that currently recorded.It is depressing (if not
surprising) that MPs should be so keen to spread anxiety on this issue
rather than defend the nation’s interest by telling the European
Commission where it can stuff its £300 million fine'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...anu/7528470/Do...

Are there no trees left to hug in your neck of the woods Doug ?

You have forgotten the carcinogen benzene, for which petrol cars are
mainly responsible and there is no completely safe level for
carcinogens. So you are saying the MPs and the EU are wrong and you
are right? Another point, pollutants are tested individually but not
as cocktails. Since there is obviously a potential health hazard, from
which some could suffer an early death, it is wise to apply the
precautionary principle rather than your cavalier attitude towards
such deaths.

The link between cigarettes and the secondary smoking risk to health
is now widely recognised but the volume of pollutants from a car
exhaust far exceeds that from a cigarette many times over. The only
difference is pragmatic. They can ban people from smoking in certain
areas but for various reasons they can't ban cars.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Can you put any numbers on this assertion Doug ?

Hang, on I'll do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene_in_soft_drinks

Atmospheric exposure due to vehicular activity from Benzene is the
equivalent to smoking 1 cigarette per day. Read the article, and if
you are really that worried, you need to move out of London.

Given you like throwing yourself into the path of moving vehicles with
gay abandon, you really do come across as risk averse in all other
areas. Your life really seems to be a series of contradictions. That
chip on your shoulder really makes you look unbalanced

On 3 May, 23:44, ash wrote:
On 3 May, 20:08, Doug wrote:



On 3 May, 17:37, ash wrote:

On 3 May, 10:03, Doug wrote:

On 3 May, 09:14, tim wrote: I guess it was the lucky ones who lived through the Great Smog ! How
many was it that failed to ?

One of the great things about the smog was that it made driving
extremely difficult when you could hardly see your hand in front of
your face. But then, with fewer cars, most of the pollution came from
coal fires in the home and some London power stations, which
fortunately are now extinct.

Campaign for Clean Air in London and the Information Commissioner are
at the Information Tribunal in a weeks time trying to find out what
Boris J and Lord Hunt (Defra) have been keeping from us regarding
their plans to do things to *satisfy Europe and prevent UK being
clobbered with big fines for appalling air quality in London.

Conspiracy theorists can try to guess what is redacted under the big
black scrawl on the released documents attached to the bottom of

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/blog...8/4516369.html

I don't suggest buying a diesel in the near future.

They are always banging on about particulates but its the other toxic
exhaust emissions that also bother me, nasty invisible stuff.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug, will you stop scaremongering people with your tales of motorised
death and distruction in every conceivable way.

As you have been unable to supply any evidence, I'll give some to the
contrary of your eco fascist bull****:-

'The failure to tackle air pollution, a committee of MPs claimed last
week, could be responsible for up to 50,000 fatalities every year. “It
could be taking years off the lives of people at risk,” from asthma
and circulatory orders, said the committee’s chairman Tim Yeo. It
could also cost us a £300 million fine from the European Commission
for failing to meet its stringent clean-air targets.
I have some personal experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of
London where I work – just a mile from the House of Commons – includes
one of the capital’s busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of
cars pour over Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling
the air with their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single
patient with pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from
one year’s end to the next.
The reason is simple enough. The levels of the three main
petrochemical pollutants, sulphur dioxide, ozone and the oxide of
nitrogen are so low as to be scarcely detectable.
It was a different matter in the early Fifties, when the the
concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air reached the dizzying
heights of 1350 parts per billion (ppb) during notorious pea-soup fogs
caused by the burning of fossil fuels. But since the Clean Air Act,
they have fallen dramatically and now hover at about 30ppb,
considerably lower than what would cause symptoms in those with
chronic lung problems.
It is a similar story with ozone and the oxides of nitrogen. An expert
report from a decade ago observed “changes in lung function are
trivial and inconsistent” following exposure to concentrations 10
times higher than that currently recorded.It is depressing (if not
surprising) that MPs should be so keen to spread anxiety on this issue
rather than defend the nation’s interest by telling the European
Commission where it can stuff its £300 million fine'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...anu/7528470/Do....

Are there no trees left to hug in your neck of the woods Doug ?

You have forgotten the carcinogen benzene, for which petrol cars are
mainly responsible and there is no completely safe level for
carcinogens. So you are saying the MPs and the EU are wrong and you
are right? Another point, pollutants are tested individually but not
as cocktails. Since there is obviously a potential health hazard, from
which some could suffer an early death, it is wise to apply the
precautionary principle rather than your cavalier attitude towards
such deaths.

The link between cigarettes and the secondary smoking risk to health
is now widely recognised but the volume of pollutants from a car
exhaust far exceeds that from a cigarette many times over. The only
difference is pragmatic. They can ban people from smoking in certain
areas but for various reasons they can't ban cars.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Can you put any numbers on this assertion Doug ?

Hang, on I'll do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene_in_soft_drinks

Atmospheric exposure due to vehicular activity from Benzene is the
equivalent to smoking 1 cigarette per day. Read the article, and if
you are really that worried, you need to move out of London.

Given you like throwing yourself into the path of moving vehicles with
gay abandon, you really do come across as risk averse in all other
areas. Your life really seems to be a series of contradictions. That
chip on your shoulder really makes you look unbalanced

So you have finally decided to accept Wikipedia as a source, only when
it suits you presumably. Of course, what you have failed to note is
that atmospheric benzene from cars and petrol is added to other
sources and is cumulative and is worse inside cars.

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

"...It has been shown that exposure to benzene is related to the
development of leukemia and lymphoma. Benzene has a suppressive effect
on bone marrow and it impairs blood cell maturation and amplification.
Benzene exposure may result in a diminished number of blood cells or
total bone marrow loss. A number of metabolites appear to be involved
in this process, and there may be several targets of toxicity,
including stem, progenitor, and some stromal cells..."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.