local primary schools amongst the 400+ where air pollution exceeds EU limits

[bawdy-nan]

Whilst it is good to see the anticipated reductions...quoting "future" data as fact would be little odd, no?

KCL anticipate your question in their FAQs:

"Why 2010?

We have chosen this year because it is the latest year for which an accurate model is available"

Seems fair enough.

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The report shows some local schools being above

> the 40 limit at around 42 in 2010. That by 2017

> forecast to be at 37 and by 2020 around 32.

> So the title of this thread and the news reports

> isn't quite right. It should add the caveat in

> 2010. I think we'd all like to have seen this

> report in 2013 when originally prepared.

> What I think would be useful is to repeat the

> report stating the schools actually on or above

> the EU current safe limit. I'd also like

> reassurance that the limit is actually correct or

> is it a compromise.

[Townleygreen]

Well, those people who have been ranting about the Quietway which was to go through the Village and would have helped reduce the pollution from cars and encouraged people (including children, maybe) to cycle to school can see why it was a good idea.

But don't let pollution get in the way of us all driving wherever we can, whenever we want, eh?

[bawdy-nan]

yup

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, those people who have been ranting about the

> Quietway which was to go through the Village and

> would have helped reduce the pollution from cars

> and encouraged people (including children, maybe)

> to cycle to school can see why it was a good

> idea.

>

> But don't let pollution get in the way of us all

> driving wherever we can, whenever we want, eh?

[James Barber]

Hi bawdy-nan,

I hope I didn't sound complacent. a limit of 40 is a very round number. I'd like to understand if their is science behind this number or is it a political compromise and actually the safe limit should be lower.

If it is a well found safe limit then we can be reassured that soon well be within it.

The great news is we're debating this now the withheld report is in the public domain.

And this speaks volumes about Boris suppressing science. What sort of leadership does that indicate!

[bawdy-nan]

Hi James

I didn't think you came across as complacent and certainly the figures are worth investigating. I agree that it would be useful to know quite what the "40" threshold actually means ... is it "safe" below that or is 40 a flashing red light of danger etc...

This is quite useful and interesting https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/aqeg/nd-summary.pdf

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi bawdy-nan,

> I hope I didn't sound complacent. a limit of 40 is

> a very round number. I'd like to understand if

> their is science behind this number or is it a

> political compromise and actually the safe limit

> should be lower.

> If it is a well found safe limit then we can be

> reassured that soon well be within it.

> The great news is we're debating this now the

> withheld report is in the public domain.

>

> And this speaks volumes about Boris suppressing

> science. What sort of leadership does that

> indicate!

[Blah Blah]

The reality is that anywhere in a large city will subject us to pollution. Pretty much every huge city in the world has similar problems, and many worse than ours, far worse. What annoys me most about cars, is that most of the time there is only one person in them (i.e the driver). It has to be one of the most innefficient forms of transport. The technology is there to give us something cleaner and better. There just has to be the will to do it.

[bawdy-nan]

I agree Blah Blah, what is interesting too is the perception of risk to health. The NO2 and particulate levels led to early death in 9000 people in the capital and the very young (and older people) are affected most. Aside from the impact of early death ongoing health problems: respiratory and cardio-vascular are directly attributable to NO2 and particulate levels. It's a big health hazard, especially for children and the elderly and yet the perceived sense of risk appears to be broadly acceptable unlike, say, the totally disproportionate sense of risk and reaction demonstrated around the recent agitation about extremely rare strains of meningitis and the consequent outraged demands for action and mass vaccination. I assume it's because the meningitis risk is more tangible and perceived to have an "easy" solution whereas the pollution whilst more deadly is perceived as less easy to "fix".

[uncleglen]

The population of London has increased by one third in the last 35 years and projected to increase by 1 million in the next 10 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11529330/The-fall-and-rise-of-Britains-car-industry.html

The car industry is not going anywhere- at least Ford has spent ?1.5 billion on low emission technology as it says in the article and I know a lot has been spent on reducing particulates from diesel engines

I tried to do without a car for several years for the benefit of the environment and it resulted in my family doing without me for an extra 2.5 hours a day instead of 45 minutes travelling time to and from work. I gave up my lone 'crusade' because no-one else was worried about wasting fossil fuels- so why should I?