The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: ULEZ Archived Message

    Posted by Itchy Bootmore on August 1, 2023, 12:11 pm, in reply to "Re: ULEZ"

    Itchy. You are seriously misguided. ERR.. sez who? No, I have concluded opinions that are different.The research into the longevity reducing effects of air pollution is manifold and scientifically robust.On what basis is that claim made? Many studies indeed show pollution affects health, but what relevance does that have to this study? Because It aligns with your opinions? You are well aware that a child doesn't go into the street one day and suddenly keel over from breathing diesel particulates or NO2. And I never said they did...Of course this is a statistical analysis, how else could it be done.By empirical evidence from direct measurement and data gathering At last, we've had one medical practitioner with the courage to put down the death of an asthmatic child to air pollution. ONE case - and even that is not a slam dunk, it's on the balance of probabilities. I'm not entirely sure other factors weren'tD also a part of it.

    I don't know how old you are, but you should recall just how long it took for lead to be removed from petrol despite incontrovertible analysis and proof of the health date from many years of study. Lead has never been removed from petrol, it has just been reduced, from something like 0.74 microg/ml to 0.19 then 0.17 if I recall figures correctly when I last looked...It took literally decades to stopping this poison being put into the air and the environment. All the same sort of arguments were used as we hear about dealing to this other form of air pollution. That lead is still in our environment and will remain - it's still present in worrying amounts twenty years after lead was removed from petrol Around 170,000 tonnes of lead polluted the UK in just thirty years from 1970 to 1999. lead is present in many other industrial processes, not least paint, pipes, electronic joints, aero fuel, much other stuff.


    Sadiq Khan deserves the highest praise for his single-mindedness against all the falacious reasoning and right wing political pressure that he's been facing. No he doesn't, the man's a charlatanEveryone has the right to breathe clean air,Yes - but define 'clean' and no-one has a right to drive a polluting vehicle Yes they do, provided they are competent to do so and their vehicle also is competent having passed certain tests, it's an historical privilege which is fortunately coming to an end. Privilege for who? You are seriously misguided if you think car ownership is coming to an end.

    You must then have read the report put out by the Imperial College London - 61,800 to 70,200 life years lost annually by pollution. Yes - and this equates to the 4000 odd premature deaths claim, premature by a week for over 80 year oldsThis represents rather more than the week you mistakenly claim, but around 6 months for any child born in London. The ULEZ will probably improve life expectency by about six months, thats a bold prediction. One I would dispute no ULEZ will see life expectancy decrease of 7 - 11 months. The amount of assumptions the are made, plus data inputs from other computer modelled studies, and caveats in the footnotes present a real danger of assumption driving assumption driving assumption

    But recall, this is an average, for children born in poverty, And so we have our confounding factor - how do you separate the effects of damp, mould, deprivation, poor nutrition, possible nicotine in the homewith chest problems or asthma affects of allergens? mites? Insect infestation? chemicals in the home?or who reside in the more polluted areas these improvements might Might? that's a caveat - not definitive represent years of life expectancy whereas those living in the leafy suburbs or wealthier areas mightn't have much effect. We should also note the associating of air pollution with heart disease and cognitive decline.

    I believe your reason for objecting to the measure of is specious.Well, you believe what you want - I disagree It only applies to a certain number of people living in London, errant nonsense - it most certainly does not! Do you have ANY idea how many people work in the Home Counties and drive for work into Outer and / or inner London? It's called a commuter belt for a reasonand it comes with other efforts Effort is the right word here - an 'effort' of no discernible impact to reduce vehicle use,for who? the poor? plumbers? care workers? but not CEOs? car sharing Only work when everyones trip coincides, usually a tiny minority, public transport What public transport? That goes where? on time?, electric bicycles etc that readily burst into flames??. Why would we scrap "perfectly roadworthy vehicles? Because they may be "roadworthy" but they're not "air worthy"According to the MOT emissions test they are or "climate worthy"define that term- that implies 'proving worth' - against what measure? Whose opinion? or even "non-driving people worthy"This "sympathy for the working class", doesn't wash because it's used all the time by people who use it as a rationalisation for their antipathy.That's rather insulting to the concerns and attitudes of the working class, John - is it betraying your bourgeois roots? On the left, it may be a genuine concern,, but it's misguided, the contrary, in my opinion it is valid for all working peopleon the right it's just rank hypocrisy and political opportunism.Not necessarily - there are working class right wingers, probably your electrician or plumber for one. it doesn't mean their opinion & experience is any less valid. The article explains all this pretty well. No, it does not. It sets up a series of supposed rationalisations based on assumptions and modelled extrapolations. I would query the validity of all those, I would also query the validity of the computer programs. how have they been substantiated against empirical measured data and principles? is the software certified? Who certified that software, and against what verification activity? What was the substantiation method? against what comparable mechanisms? Where are the hand calculations for instance

    Thanks for taking the time to engage John. I still maintain this is horse manure. The levels of resistance to ULEZ are seriously misunderstood, and now increasingly Net Zero. Blithe reports like this that ignore working and living reality for people do no-one any favours. They are unrealistic in their assumptions and presumptions, compiled by people whose salaries & bursaries depend on their believing that the study sponsors are paying for. The 'solutions' they offer are nonsense, and actually underlying all this is the unspoken message that only the rich, powerful, self important and their lick-spittles will have private transport. The rest will nave to put up and shut up.
    I say nuts to that.

    Message Thread: