malumbu

As per my first post, thank you very much for putting up the poster, and I expect most of us who go down will be doing exactly as you explained.

Back to my earlier post, you are confusing 2023 with 1973. Get some perspective.

I expect you have never been on a picket line. I have, we handed out leaflets and to those interested explained our cause. Just up the road were the London Ambulance Service, around their brazier, picketing. I was jealous both of their brazier (it was freezing) and the hoots of support they were getting from motorists. I think that you are confusing 2023 with 1973. But if you do want to go back in time, go back to pre first world war and the appalling conditions in many of our factories, the pits, the mills, with limited protection for workers, industrial accidents with no compensation from the employers, long working hours, little welfare etc etc. What a difference the trade union movement made. I'm proud to be a member.

Several successful recent films are very slow yet have done well at the box office such as the Lighthouse. Happy to see them at the Plex and well done for their more arthouse repertoire. I expect visually they would be even more impressive at the Picturehouse. Just caught the very slow moving Power of the Dog on netflix, this really could have done with a much larger screen, and the scenery in part reminded me of seeing Brokeback Mountain in the Plex. But very much agree with the fun of seeing audience participation as you get with faster paced films at the Plex Went to see the free screening of Fire of Love at the Picturehouse, again slow paced (in terms of a plot) but visually brilliant. Thanks to the person who announced this on the forum

Clot? What a wonderful word. Sort of thing teachers would call us at junior school, nit being another one. My fave was caudice translated as 'blockhead' that no doubt many of us came across when studying Latin for a year in our early teens - the modern Cambridge syllabus Don't think I've spelled it correctly, and never been called a Blockhead (but enjoyed the band). Anyway taking clot as a backhanded compliment. In deed Jules, ironic as Fahrenheit 451 was all about censorship and the burning of books. There could be two piles of Dahl books in flames, one for the 'traditionalists' and one for the 'progressives'. Maybe Kelvin 506 would be an alternative title

Couldn't give a rat's bottom about the row over Dahl books being edited (the Norwegian/British author not lentil recipe's) but as for Fareheit, consign it to the 1940s and the Daily Express please. So I'd love the Ray Bradbury book about a dystopian future (Fahrenheit 451) to be re-titled and the two films it spawned. The one thing I particularly liked about "The Martian" is that Hollywood at caught up with the modern world and moved to metric units, unlike I expect sci fi before it which was stuck in the world of ounces per quart of something ridiculous like that. Do humour this sad person!

Thanks for posting, I'll give some low key support when the opportunity arises, as well as praising a family member striking teacher.

What a daft and potentially offensive title. The council is not an individual, and those who have or have had friends and relatives who's life support was turned off might find this an awful term. You are simply providing meat to the usual suspects who froth at the mouth about all things Southwark. By all means discuss the individual issue, whatever that is as all you've made me do is focus on the title. But I should thank you for the distraction, football is dull and I'm struggling to get motivation to do anything else with my evening. I'll think I'll post something a bit surreal on the Lounge. [edited as tile was changed so above is now irrelevant.]. I've said elsewhere that Thames Water poor performance is something we can all agree on.

Not sure why it's got so terse on this subject The attached are useful background: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-explaining-air-pollution/air-quality-explaining-air-pollution-at-a-glance 6.1 Wood burning "Wood burning releases harmful pollutants straight into the home as well as into the air outside. Domestic burning is the UK’s largest source of particulate matter air pollution. Reducing how much you burn improves air quality for you and your neighbours. If you use a wood burning stove, you can reduce emissions by: using Ecodesign ready and Defra exempt stoves using the right fuel (use dry wood which contains 20% or less moisture, or look for the Ready to Burn symbol) having the stove installed properly regularly maintaining the stove and chimney using the stove correctly" (Think the exemption is a cop-out by government) And https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-background This refers to emissions ceilings, ie controls at source rather than 'ambient' (local) air quality For NOx "Road transport accounted for 27 per cent of emissions of nitrogen oxides in the UK in 2021, and other forms of transport (aviation, rail, and shipping) accounted for 14 per cent. There is a downward trend in emissions from road transport due to the replacement of older vehicles in the vehicle fleet with newer vehicles that meet stricter emissions standards. Annual emissions from road transport have fallen by 69 per cent between 2005 and 2021, and other forms of transport have reduced annual emissions by 45 per cent over the same period. Emissions from power stations and industrial combustion plants have reduced substantially, reflecting a long-term trend away from the use of coal and oil in favour of natural gas and renewable energy sources. Annual nitrogen oxide emissions from energy industries have reduced by 74 per cent between 2005 and 2021, largely due to the closure or conversion to biomass fuel of coal-fired power stations." These are total emissions, local pollution hotspots will depend on local sources, as said for NOx this will be mainly diesel vehicles and for PMs wood burning will be a significant source There was a drive towards low NOx domestic gas boilers certainly in Johnson's time as Mayor, but the world seems to be very quiet on this nowadays (and Johnson promised us London air as sweet as an Alpine valley in a Evening Standard article in the mid 10s!). "Both PM and precursor pollutants that can form it can travel large distances in the atmosphere. A small proportion of the concentrations of PM that people in the UK are exposed to come from naturally occurring sources such as pollen and sea spray (approximately 15 per cent). Another third is transported to the UK from other European countries. However, around half of UK concentrations of PM comes from anthropogenic sources in the UK such as wood burning, and tyre and brake wear from vehicles. As such, it is in the interest of the UK to identify and reduce these anthropogenic emissions where possible." Sadly there is not that much from government about indoor air pollution https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution "Air pollution isn’t just about the outdoor world. There are a number of sources of indoor air pollutants that can harm health including: CO, NO2 and particulates from domestic appliances (boilers, heaters, fires, stoves and ovens), which burn carbon containing fuels (coal, coke, gas, kerosene and wood)" This refers to a report on children and indoor pollution https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/inside-story-health-effects-indoor-air-quality-children-young-people Anyway this post is trying to be helpful in getting a better understanding of pollution and air quality. I think government should be doing a better job both in explaining and acting.

This report you attached is about nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are produced from the burning of natural gas, ie methane, Most of this is from burning methane for producing electricity and is spread around the country contributing to background levels. Some will be from domestic cooking ie contributing to poor indoor air quality (which is not controlled). Localised high levels of nitrogen dioxides are from motor vehicles, mainly diesel vehicles Wood burners produce soot, PMs, that lead to high levels outside, ie poor local air quality. Wood burners are , in this area, typically a middle class indulgence. So what is your issue? Please do not justify wood burners based on other sources of pollution. If nitrogen oxides need to be reduced from domestic cooking, heating and nationally from power generation then that is for national government to legislate. Happy for you to argue on the need to reduce NOx from natural gas, but this is not relevant to wood burners.

Yet another daft reply. Indoor air quality is your problem. Outside impacts on your community. You cannot defend wood burners in urban areas.

A bit of a confusing thread (a) that we should be all going round with body cameras on to film wrongdoings (b) That we should resort to the language of the gutter with regards to criminality © that the streets are dangerous and nothing is being done (d) that the police are helpless don't have the resources (f) that somebody had their bike nicked. I can relate to (f) but firstly an interesting article on policing if a little dated - https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-publications/police-funding-whos-paying-bill 70% funding of Met is by central government, and budgets are tight (spoiler alert it is a GLA document) As regards to (f) irrespective that the crims are winning the nuclear war, ie their weapons are better than are defences there should be more done Proper secure street parking, ie card/phone controlled locking facilities in our streets for short term parking Monitored bike parking - surveillance and possibly manned as for example in Netherlands More from the manufacturers - chips/tracking devices would be nice Get your bike security marked Tighter controls from Gumtree - resale far too easy (unlike the sister site ebay) Just don't buy second hand bikes if the price is too good to be true Re-establishment of the TfL/Met bike theft team I find it a very personal crime having three bikes nicked in London whilst going out.

Oh, the memories

There is a lot of bollox being spoken on this thread. You have a belief, eg that scientists are idiots, biased and the like and then you backfit some ancient belief and blame it on them. Sir Richard Doll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll "In 1950, he undertook, with Austin Bradford Hill, a study of lung cancer patients in twenty London hospitals, at first under the belief that it was due to the new material tarmac, or motor car fumes, but rapidly discovering that tobacco smoking was the only factor they had in common.[10] Doll himself stopped smoking as a result of his findings, published in the British Medical Journal in 1950, which concluded: The risk of developing the disease increases in proportion to the amount smoked. It may be 50 times as great among those who smoke 25 or more cigarettes a day as among non-smokers." But rather than do ten seconds of research you just come up with some nonsense that scientists said that smoking was good for you. The tobacco companies did their damned hardest to convince us of this, You can always find some rogue scientists in the same way that the fossil fuel lobby in the States looked to the minority who did not believe in man-made climate change. The biggest frustration in all of this - and it goes to scare stories on FB, Twitter, Whats app and the like is the wealth of information at our finger tips rather than just sharing the latest sensational story from the National Enquirer or Fox news.

I assume that you are being ironic. Otherwise to quote your own terminology rather a thick sweeping statement. On a broader scale a horrid outcome from populism, look down on education, diss the experts, sneer at liberal thinking people. Tories particularly good at exploiting this. My late father used to wonderfully contradict himself - you may know what X and Y equals but you have no common sense. Yet he was from a generation who self improved themselves going to night school to study book keeping and the like so they could join the professional ranks. Similarly he'd say negative things about immigrants, but an immigrant with a degree and/or a profession, well that was somebody to look up to.

In memory of Dicky Davies

Funny thing my friends is I do know lots of the subject working on and off it for the last decade. I'm more hands on nowadays so don't spent the time looking through all the data. I am not an epidemiologist or toxicologist but have enough of an understanding. I've had an even longer relationship in similar areas once upon a time being a health physicist - look it up if you don't know what that means. So please don't go dissing the research. Unless you know more than: Professor Anna Hansell, Chair (Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, University of Leicester) Professor Alan R Boobis (Professor of Toxicology, Imperial College London) Professor Nicola Carslaw (Professor in Indoor Air Chemistry, University of York) Professor Martin Clift (Associate Professor, Particle and Fibre Toxicology/In Vitro Systems, Swansea University) Professor Roy Harrison (Queen Elizabeth II Birmingham Centenary Professor of Environmental Health, University of Birmingham) Professor Mathew Heal (Chair of Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Edinburgh) Dr Mike Holland (Freelance consultant in economic assessment of environmental policies) Professor Klea Katsouyanni (Professor of Public Health, Imperial College London) Professor Duncan Lee (Professor of Statistics, University of Glasgow) Dr Mark Miller (Senior Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh) Dr Ian Mudway (Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health, Imperial College London) Professor Gavin Shaddick (Professor of Data Science and Statistics, University of Exeter) Mr John Stedman (Air Quality Analysis and Policy Support Knowledge) Sorry, as subtle as a sledgehammer. Conspiracy theorists will have their own views on why government would set up an independent committee but be calling all the shots.

You've lost me. Scientific consensus is that small particles of soot, and the gas nitrogen dioxide, pass through the lungs and into the blood stream. These are toxic. Should I be doing my own research to challenge this. My understanding of physiology and toxicology is limited. I don't have a laboratory, or staff and. I can't afford to comission somebody else to do this. If you look at COMEAP reports then you will see that the committee members do not agree on everything therefore findings and recommendations are appropriately caveated. The evidence they use will be published in peer reviewed journals so is open to scrutiny. Prey tell me how this is wrong?

Semantics my dear penguin. Scientific consensus would have been a better term. If you are an expert in this field then I'd love to hear your view on the impact of wood burners. I'm happy to be guided by expert committees and if you delve into the COMEAP reports you will there are different opinions for example on whether you can separate the impact of NO2 and PMs on the human body. Are we underestimating the impact or double counting I've not seen anyone debunk any of this but if those contributing to this thread know better... So probably 10000s of deaths a year are associated with poor air quality. And any reduction, proportionate to intervention should be justified. We need road transport to move our goods and services, for work and education, for leisure and have to accept some negative impacts on health and environment - road safety, air quality, and .... Climate change (which is the challenge as this will screw up the world) There is no case for woodburners metropolitan areas beyond self indulgence.

You talk about misleading numbers. Therefore questioning the experts. Air pollution is a contributing factor to poor health. Short term episodes exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma. Long term exposure to ambient levels can harm cardiovascular systems. People do not die purely from poor air quality, it is a contributing factor. The average size months life lost is exactly that,. Some it may be days of life lost, others years. Going back to COPD,. It will limit your life. But who's to say that with better air quality, or not catching COVID you may live a further 5 years So really not sure why you question the science/data

Suggest you don't go into excess deaths unless you are an epidemiologist. I worked with them for many years and I have to respect their expertise. Otherwise you are joining an unpleasant band of people who think they know the science better. Like those who question COVID and argue that people were going to die anyway. Or others who say, oh you got COPD from smoking, what's the issue with wood burner, it's your fault you are vulnerable These are figures from, or derived from, an official committee. They come up with risk factors for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter we are exposed to. Spend a day looking through the reports of COMEAP Whether it's one death or 1000 deaths from wood burners they are an unnecessary indulgence in metropolitan areas.

Its called satire, irony, self deprecatory humour, banter etc my good person- surely I am not that subtle. Equating a survey of two as definitive fact, clearly isn't definitive fact. Here's a comedy sketch to help me explain.

Rocks, how many more times do I have to say this "us vs them", "pro vs anti" does not help your cause one bit? Where on earth have I said that I am a 'pro LTN campainer?". I'm pro smarter use of vehicles and Zerkalo has given a great summary of why. You say that 'they' (the more extreme groups" demonise you as an "anti", and then you do exactly the same every time Jermemy Vine, Peter Walker or Rachel Aldred say something. Hardly a grown up argument is it? Well at least some of you acknowledge that you consider that there should not be restrictions on cars. I don't agree but it's good that you are clear rather than pretend otherwise. Armand, bet you wish you hadn't asked now!

Armand, you need a bit of balance on this issue. I meant to post this much earlier but didn't hit submit. The idea is to discourage short journeys, or longer ones such as school run and commute, where there are alternatives, including active travel. Air pollution is responsible for 10000s of deaths each year and one of the principle sources is nitrogen dioxide, particularly from older diesel cars. Wood burners, as discussed elsewhere, are becoming a bigger sources of small particles (aka soot or PM10/PM2.5), due to increased popularity and ironically as most diesel cars are now fitted with a filter and hence transport is a lower proportion. The big issue is how do you discourage car use and support alternatives. Walking and cycling is the obvious alternative but many come up with the spurious objection that not all can walk or cycle. The vast majority of us can, and therefore you look to alternative solutions for such vulnerable groups. We also have the most comprehensive, and affordable, public transport in the country. Government talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk and generally looks to local authorities to implement measures. The concept of the LTN is a good one, looking at the rat runs and introduce measures on these roads. There have been measures like this for many decades - one way streets, no through roads and the like, but LTN was rather a big bang and anything that restricts personal mobility will disadvantage some over others. [interestingly Rocks picks up on the Oxford LTN - Oxford City Centre has been virtually car free for 30 years now, so restrictions are nothing new] The difference between now and earlier generations is Sat Nav, in the past the rat runs were generally limited to locals and cabbies. There are some, and let's pick on an easy target, some of those driving their kid (sometimes more than one) to private school, where it is very difficult to get them out of their cars. I remember a chat with someone at one of the schools on the south circ, and they said whatever they did to prevent unsocial parking, some parents found ways round it. Of course some state school parents do similar. We've had 60 odd years of pro-car governments (apart from a blip under Blair, reversed following the effectively anti-environmental fuel protests). Central government action to nudge people out of their cars, or use more interventionist approaches, are generally seen to be vote losers (the same with the opposition parties). The best way of tackling this is a road user charge, but this is seen to be too unpopular even though there is support across the political spectrum (from greens to free marketeers). Now fuel costs are well down from their high, the government should reverse the temporary cut in fuel duty, but hasn't/wont. Fuel duty is general taxation ie can contribute to schools, hospitals, social care etc. Those most against LTNs repeat their arguments, constantly, that Southwark is corrupt, incompetent and in the hands of the rich in leafy Dulwich Village. Going off on one about 'pro's vs antis', manufactured 'car vs bike' culture wars are not helpful in a proper discussion. You probably know most of this already, and can make your own mind up about Southwark, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Croydon, Lambeth etc etc. Tends to be a common theme, Labour run councils. Wow that's a long post from me. Hope you found this useful .

Something we all agree on ☺️