Pollution:the biggest killer on British roads

[Still Waters]

Air pollution from traffic is killing vast numbers every year - and the problem is getting worse.

What is the biggest killer on our roads? It's not black ice, or drunk driving, or even badly installed accelerator pedals. In fact, it's air pollution – and it's getting worse.According to the most recent official figures – published back in 1998 – up to 24,000 people in Britain die before their time every year as a result of air pollution caused by vehicles, compared with 2,600 killed in road accidents.

Yet EU researchers say that this figure could represent less than half of the true toll, given that new studies are increasingly linking long-term exposure to traffic pollution to a range of chronic diseases.

Read more...

[MichaelW]

I'm guessing all those who died from "pollution" related diseases had some underlying medical problems anyway. And did, I just read that the latest figures released where back in 1998? Most cars these days are much cleaner in terms of emissions. In fact, mostly air pollution comes from factories and homes with open fires, which I take are still in use in much of Britain?

[Mattshark]

I'm guessing all those who died from "pollution" related diseases had some underlying medical problems anyway. And did, I just read that the latest figures released where back in 1998? Most cars these days are much cleaner in terms of emissions. In fact, mostly air pollution comes from factories and homes with open fires, which I take are still in use in much of Britain?

Nope, traffic pollution is the main cause of pollution in the UK, especially because it is everywhere, unlike a lot of industrial pollution.

Open fires are extremely rare in the UK.

[stevewinn]

Nope, traffic pollution is the main cause of pollution in the UK, especially because it is everywhere, unlike a lot of industrial pollution.

Open fires are extremely rare in the UK.

well, i guess within 30 to 40 years 90% of Transport will be cleaner, if not totally clean. or maybe we can go back to horse and cart.

[Mattshark]

well, i guess within 30 to 40 years 90% of Transport will be cleaner, if not totally clean. or maybe we can go back to horse and cart.

To be honest, we could probably make it cleaner than it is already now, it is getting the technology into the manufacture that takes a lot of the time. It is certainly better than it was 20 years ago.

[stevewinn]

To be honest, we could probably make it cleaner than it is already now, it is getting the technology into the manufacture that takes a lot of the time. It is certainly better than it was 20 years ago.

remember not so long ago when lead was in petrol. well i remember seeing a autopsy and when the coroner took the lungs out the inside of the lung had what looked like pockmarks and in these marks was small bits of lead. that had built up in the persons lungs over time.so just goes to show the type of effect air pollution has and you don't really notice it.

Edited February 21, 2010 by stevewinn

[Mattshark]

remember not so long ago when lead was in petrol. well i remember seeing a autopsy and when the coroner took the lungs out the inside of the lung had what looked like pockmarks and in these marks was small bits of lead. that had built up in the persons lungs over time.so just goes to show the type of effect air pollution has and you don't really notice it.

Aye, I think it is a reason we can all agree on to clean up our technology.

[MichaelW]

Thing is is that those results were published back in 1998, so that means you are saying that pollution effects from vehicles are still the same levels as in 1998? I am aware that open fires are rare in the UK and I admit I was thinking about NZ on that one, but how can someone attibute a normal, fit and healthy person's death soley from car pollution alone? I also think you didn't read it entirely because I did say that a majority of those people may have had underlying health problems anyway, so one cannot attribute those deaths to healthy people. I read that article and nowhere in it did it state that there were any deaths aided by the pollution.

Also, why did it state that the smog clouds in Southern California were banished by the catalytic converter? Don't all European cars sold today and even when this study was conducted have CC's installed anyway?

It just seems a bit odd that the media are using twelve year old statistics to determine present pollution trends. Seems a bit biased in my opinion.

[Alien Being]

Maybe smog was bad 60 years ago but really?

In my city I dont notice any signs of pollution.

[MichaelW]

That's because all the cars built since then are much, much cleaner than they were 12 years ago. It's just scare mongering as in someone saying: "You can't see it, but it's there."

[Mattshark]

That's because all the cars built since then are much, much cleaner than they were 12 years ago. It's just scare mongering as in someone saying: "You can't see it, but it's there."

Sorry but cars give out lots of poisons and particulates, unless you think walking through a cloud of benzine and carbon monoxide is perfectly healthy.

But hey you ignore the data all you like, I mean it is not like other studies recently have shown such things..........................

oh wait, they have

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235230/

http://ehjournal.net/content/8/1/27

http://www.teamsofangels.org/publication/medical_journal_articles/NEJM_PM_asthma_exposure_walk_lung_functio.pdf

http://assets0.pubget.com/pdf/18380234.pdf

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961443-3/fulltext

http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-0034596496&origin=inward&txGid=AhWpqfMBPubjW9ONSjpjc7A%3a2

http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=14556

[Mattshark]

Maybe smog was bad 60 years ago but really?

In my city I dont notice any signs of pollution.

It is not about smog, it is about other pollutants, a lot of studies have shown that walking in any area with heavy traffic is very bad for your health. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Raptor]

It is not about smog, it is about other pollutants, a lot of studies have shown that walking in any area with heavy traffic is very bad for your health. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Living in London, I have to wonder about the number of people that can be seen jogging out in the open air alongside an enormous crawl of clunking and wheezing traffic.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Raptor

[Mattshark]

Living in London, I have to wonder about the number of people that can be seen jogging out in the open air alongside an enormous crawl of clunking and wheezing traffic.

I can imagine! It is bad enough in Liverpool and Belfast!

[SolarPlexus]

pollution and also STOP WHALING !

[MichaelW]

Sorry but cars give out lots of poisons and particulates, unless you think walking through a cloud of benzine and carbon monoxide is perfectly healthy.

And yet planes, trains, ships, homes, factories and powerplants don't? As I said earlier, most of the people who died probably had underlying health problems anyway, and I would have accepted figures of official death tolls from pollution in countries such as the UK which were not released at the date specified in the article. If it said 2008 rather than 1998, I would have been much less annoyed.

I never said that cars weren't still producing pollutants but the levels at which these pollutants are emitted have been reduced is much lower than they were back in 1998. Go to any manufacturer website or any site which has the Euro Emissions standards on it and compare a car made in 1998 to a car made in 2008. Cars are no longer the daisy strangling tanks which are driven by people who don't give a rat's **** about the environment.

I know cars can still be cleaner but attibuting GW entirely to the automobile is not only biased but wrong (this isn't directed at you Matt but to those who belive this in general).

[Mattshark]

And yet planes, trains, ships, homes, factories and powerplants don't? As I said earlier, most of the people who died probably had underlying health problems anyway, and I would have accepted figures of official death tolls from pollution in countries such as the UK which were not released at the date specified in the article. If it said 2008 rather than 1998, I would have been much less annoyed.

I never said that cars weren't still producing pollutants but the levels at which these pollutants are emitted have been reduced is much lower than they were back in 1998. Go to any manufacturer website or any site which has the Euro Emissions standards on it and compare a car made in 1998 to a car made in 2008. Cars are no longer the daisy strangling tanks which are driven by people who don't give a rat's **** about the environment.

I know cars can still be cleaner but attibuting GW entirely to the automobile is not only biased but wrong (this isn't directed at you Matt but to those who belive this in general).

Not to the same extent they don't no.

Why are you annoyed, I gave you a load of papers showing that this is still very much the case. Sorry but cars, especially due to their volume and the fact that are already at our level are the biggest problem and there is a lot of evidence to confirm that.

[Alien Being]

Not to the same extent they don't no.

Why are you annoyed, I gave you a load of papers showing that this is still very much the case. Sorry but cars, especially due to their volume and the fact that are already at our level are the biggest problem and there is a lot of evidence to confirm that.

Really. Is it the same scientists telling you that as the ones that told you global warming was real?

I think ashma is caused by vacinations. As far as pollution goes your body encounters many toxins throughout its live even if living out in the wilderness away from towns and cities. Your body is also capable of dealign with them.

[Mattshark]

Really. Is it the same scientists telling you that as the ones that told you global warming was real?

I think ashma is caused by vacinations. As far as pollution goes your body encounters many toxins throughout its live even if living out in the wilderness away from towns and cities. Your body is also capable of dealign with them.

Well just looking at temperature records will show that actually, and if you looked there is a list of recent papers on the subject.

You think that, unless you have good evidence to back it up though it is meaningless. You would also have to look over the numerous genetic factors involved an explain why vaccination is causing them.

Really? How often do you naturally walk though a cloud of benzine and carbon monoxide naturally? You body can't deal with these poisons at all.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Mattshark

[MichaelW]

What the hell has rising temperatures got to do with asthma? It is common knowlege that the Western world has the highest rates of asthma in the world, and out of those countries, I think the UK has one of the highest numbers. If someone died from pollution, then they most probably had some sort of underlying health problems anyway and it is this fact which you seem to ingore.

I was annoyed at the fact they were using old data which does not necessairily represent the current numbers. Using statistics like those in the article to create a current picture of deaths attibuted to pollution is both stupid and almost wrong. Any self deserving newspaper would know that.

Sure, electric trains and other public transport which runs on alternative fuels uses less power and produces less carbons but those who use diesel are producing twice as much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide than say, petrol, compressed natural gas or LPG do. All that stuff you said about how cars are most polluting is just downright wrong. All you seem to do is ignore the reasoable arguments and concentrate on the statements which make you look good.

[Mattshark]

What the hell has rising temperatures got to do with asthma? It is common knowlege that the Western world has the highest rates of asthma in the world, and out of those countries, I think the UK has one of the highest numbers. If someone died from pollution, then they most probably had some sort of underlying health problems anyway and it is this fact which you seem to ingore.

I was annoyed at the fact they were using old data which does not necessairily represent the current numbers. Using statistics like those in the article to create a current picture of deaths attibuted to pollution is both stupid and almost wrong. Any self deserving newspaper would know that.

Sure, electric trains and other public transport which runs on alternative fuels uses less power and produces less carbons but those who use diesel are producing twice as much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide than say, petrol, compressed natural gas or LPG do. All that stuff you said about how cars are most polluting is just downright wrong. All you seem to do is ignore the reasoable arguments and concentrate on the statements which make you look good.

No it isn't wrong. Cars are far more prevalent and far more of a problem.

I haven't ignored anything, I have presented evidence showing why these things are a real problem and I think it is unjustifiable of you to claim I have ignored anything when I am the only one to present extra evidence.

Sorry Michael, you are wrong about your conclusions.

[MichaelW]

Maybe I should be more blatant. You cannot attribute 24,000 deaths just to pollution alone. That sort of figure is more likely associated with smoking. And those figures expressed in the article were from 1998 which means they do not represent an accurate picture of the current trend of deaths arrtibuted to pollution anyway. I also said that many of those who had died would have had underlying health problems anyway, so they were sick before they were exposed to said pollution.

I just don't see how someone can say a situtation is worse when the figures to back it up are 12 years old. It's just stupid.

Edited February 24, 2010 by MichaelW

[Mattshark]

Maybe I should be more blatant. You cannot attribute 24,000 deaths just to pollution alone. That sort of figure is more likely associated with smoking. And those figures expressed in the article were from 1998 which means they do not represent an accurate picture of the current trend of deaths arrtibuted to pollution anyway. I also said that many of those who had died would have had underlying health problems anyway, so they were sick before they were exposed to said pollution.

I just don't see how someone can say a situtation is worse when the figures to back it up are 12 years old. It's just stupid.

Not really, it can just take that long with analysing figures, especially government ones, it should also be noted that more recent studies have done nothing but reinforce this data. Yes some may have had underlying health problems, but traffic fumes in some places, especially in busy area's are worse than the effects of smoking.

Because more recent studies say so, that is why.