Calls for lower limits on UK air pollution after it's ruled the cause of death of 9-year-old London girl

Legally binding maximum levels of particulate air pollution should be lowered in the UK to be in line with World Health Organization limits, a coroner has said.

UK levels for two particularly harmful kinds of pollution are currently twice as high as the WHO recommends.

Philip Barlow, coroner for inner south London, ruled earlier this year that air pollution from traffic was a cause of the death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah in February 2013.

It was the first time that toxic air had been given as a cause of death in the UK. Barlow said in his ruling in December that Ella had been exposed to nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM) pollution in excess of WHO guidelines, the principal source of which was traffic emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/21/reduce-air-pollution-levels-uk-to-who-limits-says-coroner-ella-kissi-debrah

I think a lot of people think of air pollution as a problem, but rarely do we think of it as something that can literally kill someone.

Contributing factor. She had severe asthma

The article indicated that no one told mom that high pollution could affect her daughter.

That seems a bit odd. I would think that would be common knowledge. As a former North Texan you are familiar with ozone action alerts and the precautions that should be taken by people with breathing problems.

I wonder if those high levels of what ever in the hell is on the air are high everywhere, or just densely populated areas. The article mentioned it was caused by traffic. While cleaner fuels are coming on line, so are densely populated areas and sparsely populated areas. I wonder how many health problems can be traced back to us living more and more like sardines?

Maddog wrote:Contributing factor. She had severe asthma

The article indicated that no one told mom that high pollution could affect her daughter.

That seems a bit odd. I would think that would be common knowledge. As a former North Texan you are familiar with ozone action alerts and the precautions that should be taken by people with breathing problems.

I wonder if those high levels of what ever in the hell is on the air are high everywhere, or just densely populated areas. The article mentioned it was caused by traffic.  While cleaner fuels are coming on line, so are densely populated areas and sparsely populated areas. I wonder how many health problems can be traced back to us living more and more like sardines?

Absolutely.

I suffer from asthma. It's worse if I eat certain foods...or too much of a certain food. I'm like a human barometer for pollution. Not only can I smell it, it affects me so badly that I struggle to breathe. So, living in Manchester I actually avoid going out when the air quality is really low...and this happens a lot in high summer when we have little or no wind blowing around. Manchester sits in a geological basin, and if you drive out of the city you'll actually see this brown fug hovering over the city. When I start wheezing you can bet the air quality is shite. When I travel to places like Scotland or Wales, or Cornwall, I don't suffer at all.

But it's not just that. It also begins and ends in our food. It's imperative to have a healthy gut for your immune system to be working properly. With all the shite they put in our food, from what they feed the livestock, spray on the veg, etc...we don't stand a chance.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Maddog wrote:Contributing factor. She had severe asthma

The article indicated that no one told mom that high pollution could affect her daughter.

That seems a bit odd. I would think that would be common knowledge. As a former North Texan you are familiar with ozone action alerts and the precautions that should be taken by people with breathing problems.

I wonder if those high levels of what ever in the hell is on the air are high everywhere, or just densely populated areas. The article mentioned it was caused by traffic.  While cleaner fuels are coming on line, so are densely populated areas and sparsely populated areas. I wonder how many health problems can be traced back to us living more and more like sardines?

Absolutely.  

I suffer from asthma.  It's worse if I eat certain foods...or too much of a certain food.  I'm like a human barometer for pollution.  Not only can I smell it, it affects me so badly that I struggle to breathe.   So, living in Manchester I actually avoid going out when the air quality is really low...and this happens a lot in high summer when we have little or no wind blowing around.   Manchester sits  in a geological basin, and if you drive out of the city you'll actually see this brown fug hovering over the city.   When I start wheezing you can bet the air quality is shite.  When I travel to places like Scotland or Wales, or Cornwall, I don't suffer at all.

But it's not just that.   It also begins and ends in our food.  It's imperative to have a healthy gut for your immune system to be working properly.  With all the shite they put in our food, from what they feed the livestock, spray on the veg, etc...we don't stand a chance.

I imagine something similar is happening in the UK as is happening here, at least in Texas.

Our rural areas are becoming less populated while our cities are growing exponentially.

Just the city of Ft Worth, has grown from about half a million people to one million people in 20 years. Conditions in places like that are going to be affected, no matter how "green" we are.

We already have the "ultra low emission zone" coming into force here in London later in this year... This will see older and higher polluting vehicles being restricted from going inside the north and south circular ring roads.


It is diesels that are the biggest problem, busses and vans/lorries, but there are also far too many diesel cars on the roads now as well, after labour told everyone that it was better for the environment...

Tommy Monk wrote:


We already have the "ultra low emission zone" coming into force here in London later in this year... This will see older and higher polluting vehicles being restricted from going inside the north and south circular ring roads.


It is diesels that are the biggest problem, busses and vans/lorries, but there are also far too many diesel cars on the roads now as well, after labour told everyone that it was better for the environment...

Diesel vehicles never caught on here. I think they are a result if much higher fuel taxes, which is a result of governments trying to help.

Good intentions can't escape the laws of unintended consequences.

Well, I don't see the invisible hand of the free market doing anything to stop pollution.

It would eventually do something, but by then it would be far too late.

Mass immigration in to London is certainly making things worse, plus road design policy whereby lanes for cars are reduced to make way for mostly empty bus lanes and cycle lanes etc, causing long slow moving lanes of regular traffic that just pump out more exhaust fumes by slowly moving along than they would do if allowed to move more quickly to destinations.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, I don't see the invisible hand of the free market doing anything to stop pollution.

It would eventually do something, but by then it would be far too late.

Who makes the Tesla?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, I don't see the invisible hand of the free market doing anything to stop pollution.

It would eventually do something, but by then it would be far too late.

Who makes the Tesla?

Do you think Teslas are going to save the world?

More importantly, do you think anybody would have bothered making cleaner cars if it weren't for government pressure?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Who makes the Tesla?

Do you think Teslas are going to save the world?

More importantly, do you think anybody would have bothered making cleaner cars if it weren't for government pressure?

Electric cars will help.

And yes, they would have been created because they will be far more efficient to run in the near future.

They are already cheaper to run, but the upfront costs are still a little high.

Same goes for solar panels. We're not there yet, but we are getting to the point where we will need far less electric production. Not just because it's clean, but fossil fuels are far more expensive than sunlight.

There are so many newer forms of energy production that are very desirable, regardless of their effect on the environment as they are going to have such a positive effect on people's financial situation. Technology doesn't advance because of government mandates as much as it does because of economic benefits.

Nobody would be exploring alternate fuels right now, because there's no economic reward until we seriously start running out of fossil fuels.

Ben Reilly wrote:Nobody would be exploring alternate fuels right now, because there's no economic reward until we seriously start running out of fossil fuels.

The sun and wind are free.

Of course they would.

You don't have to be running out of something to look for a cheaper alternative.

If you say so, dude.

Maddog wrote:Electric cars will help.

Electric batteries must be charged. So, it goes right back onto what is the source of electricity?

Wind and hydroelectric generation (dams and/or waves) are limited to that proximity where wind and water are found, and can be captured. Electricity dissipates quickly the farther it has to travel. A typical maximum transmission distance is about 300 miles (483 km). Las Vegas has so many lights because they are neighbors to Hoover Dam.

The further you are from a natural source, they more you must generate electricity from scratch. That means fossil fuel (coal or oil) or nuclear power. If you generate your own power, you’ve got to deal with the negatives, including carbon pollution, heat pollution and other changes to the environment.

Ben Reilly wrote:If you say so, dude.

I don't say so, common sense says so. The cheapest fuels will always be pursued by technology.

Moving, heating and cooling things effects a companies bottom line. The cheaper the better.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If you say so, dude.

I don't say so, common sense says so. The cheapest fuels will always be pursued by technology.  

Moving, heating and cooling things effects a companies bottom line. The cheaper the better.  

And you also know as well as I do that no alternative energy source has proven as cheap as fossil fuels. So logically, as I said, the free market would never embrace alternative energies until the day fossil fuels were more expensive -- i.e., when we ran out of them.

But if we burn all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer, we're beyond fucked -- and there is no for-profit entity that cares about that intrinsically, without pressure from entities like governments.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't say so, common sense says so. The cheapest fuels will always be pursued by technology.  

Moving, heating and cooling things effects a companies bottom line. The cheaper the better.  

And you also know as well as I do that no alternative energy source has proven as cheap as fossil fuels. So logically, as I said, the free market would never embrace alternative energies until the day fossil fuels were more expensive -- i.e., when we ran out of them.

But if we burn all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer, we're beyond fucked -- and there is no for-profit entity that cares about that intrinsically, without pressure from entities like governments.

Nuclear power might be.

And we are getting very close. Fossil fuels will soon go the way of the steam engine, because renewables will be cheaper.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

And you also know as well as I do that no alternative energy source has proven as cheap as fossil fuels. So logically, as I said, the free market would never embrace alternative energies until the day fossil fuels were more expensive -- i.e., when we ran out of them.

But if we burn all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer, we're beyond fucked -- and there is no for-profit entity that cares about that intrinsically, without pressure from entities like governments.

Nuclear power might be.

But nuclear power requires running water for cooling.