Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saving For a Space Ship

Nearly 40 million people live in UK areas with illegal air pollution  

Recommended Posts

No.Air i.e car exhaust pollution is real.

Strangly for labour, a lot of it us various migrants driving around in sh1t cars, doing taxiing and amazon deliveries, all on make work tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently drive a diesel and want to trade it in soon and not sure if the government are going to turn it into scrap or offer some sort of compensation scheme. I love government meddling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, spyguy said:

No.Air i.e car exhaust pollution is real.

Strangly for labour, a lot of it us various migrants driving around in sh1t cars, doing taxiing and amazon deliveries, all on make work tax credits.

This x1000.

i would also add, that VW from 2007 and earlier are shocking polluters.

German crap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one piece of tax legislation on diesel cars Gordon Brown probably killed more people in the UK than all the wars and terrorist incidents in the last 30 years. Another appalling legacy from his period as Chancellor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

In one piece of tax legislation on diesel cars Gordon Brown probably killed more people in the UK than all the wars and terrorist incidents in the last 30 years. Another appalling legacy from his period as Chancellor.

Ok, then rest of his stuff was good though ....

Only kidding.

If the useless tnuc was not gassing kids, he was putting them in debt for the rest of their life.

Brown really was the worst uk pol ever. As time goes on, you find how bad is smart little wheezes were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TwoTearsInABucket said:

You really can turn anything to immigration :)

Not really.

Im just reporting what I see.

Taxi rank has gone from 100% locals to 80% non UK in about 10 years.

Amazon deliveries at work are all different EUers.

Its liss immigrants, more tax credits dragging people in to do pointless, low waged jobs parttime.

Stop tax credits and all those migrants will go.

Remove right to remain for people esrning less than 30k and/or claiming any benefit inc. Free schooling and healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoTearsInABucket said:

Illegal due to which laws? Once we are out of the EU we can ignore all their liberal clean air shite.

You post that in jest, but this is the plan as far as I can see.

There is certainly no rush to clean up the air, in fact, in a far-signed move typical of the UK ruling class, they are raising the cost of VED on electric vehicles this year! It's probably only lefty, socialist metropolitan types who drive electric vehicles (or like to breathe) anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Futuroid said:

You post that in jest, but this is the plan as far as I can see.

There is certainly no rush to clean up the air, in fact, in a far-signed move typical of the UK ruling class, they are raising the cost of VED on electric vehicles this year! It's probably only lefty, socialist metropolitan types who drive electric vehicles (or like to breathe) anyway.

I dont think yhe science on pollution or the safe levels are coming from the eu. This reductions are being driven by WHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

I dont think yhe science on pollution or the safe levels are coming from the eu. This reductions are being driven by WHO.

The science isn't - the enforcement is.

What are the UK government going to do after Brexit... fine themselves when they miss the targets? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always amazed by what a blind spot we have to fossil fuel health effects. The global estimate is over a million deaths a year. Imagine if nuclear had a year with even 1/100 of those deaths? (yes, I know there are some fairly high estimates for the cumulative effects of Chernobyl floating around, but I think the generally accepted death toll for nuclear is in the low 10's of thousands across the entire history of the inductry).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

I'm always amazed by what a blind spot we have to fossil fuel health effects. The global estimate is over a million deaths a year. Imagine if nuclear had a year with even 1/100 of those deaths? (yes, I know there are some fairly high estimates for the cumulative effects of Chernobyl floating around, but I think the generally accepted death toll for nuclear is in the low 10's of thousands across the entire history of the inductry).

Yes nuclear is safe so far only 4 meltdowns polluting the planet for thousands of years and neither is contained. Plus lets ignore the contamination risk of nuclear waste and where to keep it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

I'm always amazed by what a blind spot we have to fossil fuel health effects. The global estimate is over a million deaths a year. Imagine if nuclear had a year with even 1/100 of those deaths? (yes, I know there are some fairly high estimates for the cumulative effects of Chernobyl floating around, but I think the generally accepted death toll for nuclear is in the low 10's of thousands across the entire history of the inductry).

One extraction of fossil fuels accident - Piper Alpha- has killed more people than nuclear has.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, interestrateripoff said:

Yes nuclear is safe so far only 4 meltdowns polluting the planet for thousands of years and neither is contained. Plus lets ignore the contamination risk of nuclear waste and where to keep it....

That's my point. Relatively, it *is* safe - orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels, that are not only killing ~1m people a year, they have also lead to the potential destruction of our entire planet through climate change. Also worth pointing out that modern nuclear doesn't have the risks that older tech did, nor the waste issues - but unfortunately it is just too difficult politically to make the switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spyguy said:

One extraction of fossil fuels accident - Piper Alpha- has killed more people than nuclear has.

 

Based on who's data?

The death toll from radiation contamination will never accurately been known neither will the number of birth defects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, interestrateripoff said:

Based on who's data?

The death toll from radiation contamination will never accurately been known neither will the number of birth defects.

Quite, I watched the Chernobyl engineering puff piece on the box and they quoted the number of deaths from that one incident as well over 2000 and rising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about air pollution, but I know when it affects me whatever the causes.....from living, working and driving in built up areas to moving to a fresher place I can easily tell the difference.....my lungs and nose tells me, it can't be good for you if constantly exposed to it over long periods of time, not good for kids.....the pockets of foul air are the worse, where it seems to linger and not disperse, further up the road it becomes cleaner so not all bad, just generally bad, some days worse than others....hope things can improve for everyone that has to live with it.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought that I'd not heard discussed before. 

Hpc'ers quoted £10,000's to cleanse a house of third hand smoke . 

Quote

Buying a house from a smoker could prove dangerous for your health, study finds Third hand smoke permeates furniture, carpets and walls and could prove toxic, even months after people have stopped smoking in it, scientists say ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12077562/Buying-a-house-from-a-smoker-could-prove-dangerous-for-your-health-study-finds.html

But does traffic & wood burner pollution also affect house interiors & residents health in high pollution urban areas? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Just a thought that I'd not heard discussed before. 

Hpc'ers quoted £10,000's to cleanse a house of third hand smoke . 

But does traffic & wood burner pollution also affect house interiors & residents health in high pollution urban areas? 

Out of interest is burning gas pollution free for heat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interestrateripoff said:

Out of interest is burning gas pollution free for heat?

Do you mean gas boiler pollution exhaust from houses ? & was that a typo , where you meant  " free from heat?"

On a related note ...

Government has failed to act on air pollution, says Labour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39678321

When will we see 'tailpipes' on cars as morally wrong? An Earth Day question

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101015_when-will-we-start-to-see-tailpipes-on-cars-as-morally-wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, interestrateripoff said:

Based on who's data?

The death toll from radiation contamination will never accurately been known neither will the number of birth defects.

This is true to some extent, but there is reasonable scientific data on health effects of radiation, and a reasonable estimate of a dose-response effect is known.

The issue is that with environmental pollution in general, the death and disease toll cannot accurately be determined. Many of the effects are weak, the effects on the individual are low, the data is very noisy, and the effects are latent for a prolonged period. 

For example, the health effects of particulate air pollution are beholden to the same vagaries as that of radiation. Some of the health effects are beginning to become known and quantified, such as effects on asthma, respiratory infections, etc. However, there are reasons to suspect other illnesses: atherosclerosis, coronary disease, inflammatory diseases, lung cancer, throat and nasal cancer, etc. may also be linked. How does one separate factors from air pollution from smoking, or obesity, or poor diet, or lifestyle or whatever?

Another issue is that radiation and radioactivity tend to be poorly understood by the public and politicians, and therefore politicians like to be seen to act. The government response to the Fukushima accident is a good example of this. The degree of contamination of the land is well established and known with detail. The biological effects on the population can be estimated within useful bounds, and useful predictions can be made: e.g. if the population had been told to stay put, then an excess of 50 cancer deaths would be expected over the next 50 years (e.g. work by French and Wilson). Now, we will never know which 50 were attributable, or indeed know with certainty whether the number effect was instead 10 or 200. However, what we do know was that 60 people were killed during the evacuation and several thousand suffered serious illness due to the displacement.

For Chernobyl, the numbers are much higher due to the much higher level of contamination. The WHO estimate is that 5000 excess deaths by 2030 should be expected. However, that is only from the radiation, and as stated in the Fukushima vignette above, the health costs of evacuation and exclusion zones are substantial, and therefore this number needs to be taken as a lower bound. There have been various other estimates for total excess deaths of up 200k, but these have widely criticised due to unrealistic dose estimates.

One should not assume that long-term exclusion zones are the preserve of nuclear energy; the coal mine fires at the coal town of Centralia, Pennsylvania, USA have rendered the vicinity of the town uninhabitable for the forseeable future, and potentially hundred or thousands of years. One should not forget the scale of air pollution from fossil fuels - in China recent estimates (work by Teng and Rohde) of the health effects of coal energy cite between 670k and 1.2 million excess deaths per year.

 

Out of interest is burning gas pollution free for heat?

No. Older boilers produce significant amounts of NOx, which was the main fudged pollutant in the VW emissions scandal and a major respiratory irritant and contributor to smog. In general, advances have been made in recent years, and state-of-the-art boilers have reduced emissions by close to 90% compared to older models, so that the total annual emissions from domestic heating for a typical house, are of the same order of magnitude as emissions from a modern (compliant) diesel car driven an average domestic annual distance. However, even this, in a built up area such a a city centre or much of greater London, can nevertheless be a significant contributor to air quality problems.

Particulate emissions from natural gas are low - and about 1% of the particulate emissions of a log burner. Interestingly, the annual particulate emissions from a domestic boiler also work out as approximately equal to the annual emissions of a modern diesel car driven an average domestic distance (although both this and the figure above are perhaps more illustrations of the effectiveness of modern diesel emissions after-treatment than the cleanliness of natural gas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spyguy said:

One extraction of fossil fuels accident - Piper Alpha- has killed more people than nuclear has.

 

I remember watching a documentary on nuclear a while back.  Really interesting and I felt quite objective.... However one expert that was getting interviewed said pretty much the same, only ever a dozen or so deaths.  

Total bs, maybe from the initial explosion ( or including Marie Currie ?) But common sense tells you no...I don't have any data on hand but I firmly believe the fallout for decades say after Chernobyl, will have affected and indirectly killed many many more.

 

Long term is it not possible that we'll one day harness clean nuclear ( fusion?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, interestrateripoff said:

Based on who's data?

The death toll from radiation contamination will never accurately been known neither will the number of birth defects.

Lte me add more detail.

Direct extraction of nuclear energy - Piper Alpha + 1000s of other accidets, fckups and the like.

Indirect deaths from nulcear are much higher - but they are few and far bwteen.

Indirect deaths from fossil fules are huge - and that would ignore car crashes and the like. The number of deaths caused by pollution and fumes is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   89 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.