PalenQ

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/w...tion.html?_r=0

I like to post these type of things just to let folks who are heading to cities like this that if they have breathing problems or asthma, to be aware of the situation.

London's air pollution has reached modern highs - redolent of times in early 50s - I always thought London now had clean air when I was there but I guess times they are a changing- why the heck are people allowed to burn wood for heating and drive diesel cars?

Pretty shocking to me!

willit

As the article says, there was a major drive some years ago to promote diesel cars - as they were then concerned with Carbon Dioxide emissions. There are proposed moves to heavily tax, or even ban diesel cars from cities.

flanneruk

There are 25 million homes in Britain, 1.2 million of which have wood-burning stoves - which operate three or four evenings a week for at most four months a year. Who they damage is unclear (the inhabitants, the neighbours or people miles downwind of our chimneys?) - but the numbers are trivial.

Britain's newly-discovered air pollution is almost entirely due to diesel emissions - which can't be caused by the density of diesel cars, since that's far lower than in most neighbouring European countries. All of which, till recently, claimed diesel was good - and use far more of the same diesel.

I've asked alleged experts on this why it's a such a problem in Britain: my friendly local university does a disproportionate share of the relevant research. They say it's too soon to know.

So here's my theory

I think it's the extreme proximity so many Britons live in to dense, diesel-emitting, traffic. Most other European countries have much emptier suburbs, and a far larger proportion of the population living in flats, way above where diesel exhausts pour pollutants out.

Far more of us live and sleep just a few feet above the exhaust level of buses, trucks and cars passing our houses 24/7, twelve months a year.

We need to ban diesel, or all move house.

PalenQ

Tourists can help out -don't rent diesels!

Dianedancer

Paris has a big problem too. Diesel methinks.

bilboburgler

I suspect there is an extra affect of a high pressure inversion, certainly back in January that was what was happening.

Wiki; An inversion can lead to pollution such as smog being trapped close to the ground, with possible adverse effects on health. An inversion can also suppress convection by acting as a "cap". If this cap is broken for any of several reasons, convection of any moisture present can then erupt into violent thunderstorms. Temperature inversion can notoriously result in freezing rain in cold climates.

Particulates in the atmosphere make these appear worse as fogs form on them.

London is a big city, with a lot of diesel being used in the trucks, buses, cars.

Just how think how bad it would be if they were still burning coal for heat and cooking while running a large part of industry as manufacturing. Those nutters who want manufacturing back don't remember those issues.

flanneruk

"I suspect there is an extra affect of a high pressure inversion, certainly back in January"

The numbers on which the NYT article PalQ quotes are based refer to the whole of 2012.

bilboburgler

Good point (sorry I don't like clicking through) but variables could still be
1) diesels
2) changes in monitoring, nearly always a cause of "change"
3) The Olympics
4) Growth in firework sales
5) Growth in building slowed in 2007 but then accelerated, building is a major source of particulates
6) It would be interesting to see if TFL had seen more bus journeys

I never felt the diesel story was really about CO2
It started around 2007 when the world wide economy ground to a stop and suddenly the world had lots of diesel no longer being used. It was also about then that the VW clean diesel deals were going on. Finally across the Western world car-scrappage schemes came in so far more new diesels hit the market.

On the positive side bicycle journeys have increased. At least we can be sure they are not causing the problem

flanneruk

"At least we can be sure they are not causing the problem"

Can we?

This whole modern pollution thing seems to be a dismal tale of unintended consequences.

London's mania for limiting car use includes purposely extended red light signals - leading to prolonged periods of cats idling with their engines on. And it leads to an absurd tolerance for a handful of rich children too lazy to walk (like Cameron D and Johnson B) with their entitled demands for more cycle lanes.

Which, in a city built for walkers and public transport, means even less space for cars, and an increase in choke points producing still more pollution from unnecessarily idling cars.

Add to that arguably excessive growth in buses (not bikes' fault, but the fault of a similar set of pressures), especially outside London, and there's a range of allegedly "environmental" measures that have the effect of increasing premature deaths.

PalenQ

On the positive side bicycle journeys have increased. At least we can be sure they are not causing the problem>

but being in traffic of diesels that may not be healthy for the lungs?

bilboburgler

Most of the city was built for peds and horse drawn vehicles. London town planners have never managed to get a handle on fitting cars and buses into a city that has changed little from before the Fire of London. (Pepys has a lovely section on how the ruins were protected by the owners to ensure no new layout was allowed).

P, you are right I fear for anyone walking, driving, cycling.

Still it could be worse, it could be Shanghai, whenever I went I would have a chest infection for months afterwards. Not the case in London, have a look at this

http://aqicn.org/map/world/

Oh, another variable is having a very busy airport just up wind of the capital. At least Leeds doesn't have a busy airport.

Heimdall

Air pollution is not the only thing cyclists in London need to worry about:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38923734

PatrickLondon

<<but being in traffic of diesels that may not be healthy for the lungs?<<

Seemingly not as bad as one might imagine:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ow-to-avoid-it