Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Air pollution from road traffic causes more deaths per year than road accidents
From The Telegraph, Science News: 19 May 2016
Exhaust fumes are twice as deadly as roads, study claims
More than 5,000 people die prematurely from conditions like lung cancer and heart disease because of emissions, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Exhaust from aeroplanes cause a further 2,000 deaths annually while emissions from the energy and industrial sectors and pollution originating from Europe bring the overall total up to 19,000 deaths per year in Britain.
In contrast official figures state that 1,850 people were killed as a result of road accidents in 2010.
Prof Steven Barrett, who led the study, said: "It does appear to be the case that air pollution from road traffic causes more deaths per year than the number who die on the roads.
"But those who die from air pollution tend to die about 10 years earlier than they would otherwise, whereas people who die in road traffic accidents might be on average middle aged, so it is likely that road traffic accidents cause more loss of life years overall than air pollution."
The researchers made their estimates by comparing models of how gases circulate in the atmosphere against health statistics and the results of clinical studies.
The study, published in the Environmental Science and Technologyjournal, suggests that 40 per cent of the major pollutant – particles which measure up to 2.5 micrometers in size – come from abroad rather than from Britain.
Separate research by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health claims that long-term exposure to air pollution raises the risk of various health problems in our later years.
Their study, published in the PLoS ONE journal, reported that every 10 microgram-per-square-metre increase in air pollution corresponds to a six per cent higher risk of hospital admission for diabetes, a four per cent higher risk for breathing conditions like pneumonia, and a three per cent higher risk of heart disease or stroke.
Prof Joel Schwartz, who led the study, said: "The difference between a rural area and a dense urban area is probably about five to ten micrograms, so those percentages might be telling of the difference between living in a clean, rural area and a heavily polluted urban one."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Penny A on
-
Hi again! It's telling me that I've already sent you a connection request so I can't do again. Check your HoL box to top right of the screen and under 'Connections' there should be a red 1 next to it.
-
Permalink Reply by MR G on
-
read this report which proves driving a vehicle at a lower gear increases polluting emissions dramatically. http://taxileaks.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/blanket-20mph-speed-limits-...
Pollution is more prevalent on the ladder rungs because you can barely drive over the humps at 20mph without damaging suspension more like 10mph because the humps are so sheer and high. driving in 2nd gear is bad, because the engine has to work harder to pull the vehicle therefore emits higher noxious gases.
I am not condoning speeding in any way, only common sense over bureaucracy. It is a rarity these days. Teach children and adults how to cross roads again. Like Alvin Stardust did in the 70s without the cheese of course, as in stop starring at your bloody smart(ironically)phones while crossing them. That would save many lives.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Maybe it would be better to look at at evidence based study like the one below
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0440-W.pdf
There are two fairly simple influencers on the severity of injury when a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a moving vehicle
- the faster a vehicle is moving the further the braking distance meaning an impact is more likely the higher the speed (as the vehicle will be less likely able to stop in time to avoid a collision)
- the faster the vehicle is moving at the point of impact, the greater the force on the object being struck
The study above, which analysed actual collisions rather than collecting supposition and anecdotes, found the severity of injury rose significantly at speeds above 20mph.
-
Permalink Reply by 0n59eal4meshz on
-
That links to spin from a black-cab drivers' site. It refers to CO2 not the noxious fumes that black cabs produce. It also has anecd
-
-
As I was going to say before I accidentally posted earlier-I discount the ex-examiner's comment, as all properly evaluated evidence shows that more deaths result from being hit at 30 than 20.
What is never asked in this type of discussion is why manufacturers do not redesign their products/engines/gear boxes to be more efficient lower speeds! They should have the know-how!
BTW science works on 'probabilities' and 'likelihoods'; based on our observations it is 'probable' that the sun will rise tomorrow - though there is no guarantee.
But I suspect you will carry on assembling a few straw men because you simply don't like what the science tells you about your car.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
No straw men here: I only asked you what you thought about the AA figures. But science, as observed by the AA, seems to tell me that my car is less efficient over a given distance at 20 mph than 30. That's all I'm saying.
-
-
While I don't dispute that exhaust fumes are bad for you, this article is woolly in the extreme..
- Do the MIT figures apply to Britain only ? To use Prof Barrett's favourite word - probably
- 21 thousand deaths are not caused by exhaust fumes - are our priorities wrong ?
- " it is likely that ...." " might be on average middle aged "
- some figures are in micrometers ( we'll forgive the American spelling ) , others are in microgrammes
- " probably "
- Pollutants " come from abroad " vote Brexit
I'm cancelling my subscription
-
-
Yes I agree it is a little woolly (I'm sure there are better articles out there and I'll find one) but this leapt out at me - "But those who die from air pollution tend to die about 10 years earlier than they would otherwise". And given I'm approaching my sixth decade and live on Warham road that before the Bridge Works and Wightman Road closure carried an average of 18,000 vehichles a week I am a little worried about this effect on my health!! God help Wightman Road residents!!
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
Thanks for posting this Penny. I too am horrified by it. Before the closure Wightman was carrying 120,000 vehicles a weak, I can only imagine what damage that is doing to our health and our children's health, living here on Wightman.
It would be a dereliction of duty if the council allowed the road to open again to carry anywhere near that level. The pollution levels exceed legal limits and the council must have a legal duty to protect us.
-
Permalink Reply by EMC2 on
-
Road humps could be making it worse Penny. And this Telegraph article also links to another Telegraph piece on the structural damage they cause.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
