A public health crisis? Or should we all just pretend it is normal and unavoidable.

Perhaps one could also draw reference to the recent articles that pertain to the chemicals found in deodorants/anti-perspitants, detergents etc that are considered to be extremely volatile with respect to the VOC's that they release. These have been implicated in the formations of neoplasms/carcinomas. 

There was a study that found a correlation between diesel fumes and an apparent build up of toxicity in the brain but it was inconclusive: more research is necessary before any real conclusions may be inferred. 

I would agree that pollution needs to be reduced, but there are possibly many culprits that contribute to a degradation in public health. Rigorous scrutiny of scientific procedures and a plethora of double blind RCT's are required before one could consider that any real conclusions can be drawn.

No.

But, If you take your children into a city you know suffers from high levels of pollution, you should be done for child abuse.

fatcat posted:

No.

But, If you take your children into a city you know suffers from high levels of pollution, you should be done for child abuse.

What if you already live there?

If I recall correctly (please correct me if I am wrong) nearly 50% of vehicles manufactured by Daimler are diesel. The number produced by BMW is not far behind. Germany could be shooting itself in the foot. I applaud the mass adoption of electric vehicles but are we not simply dumping our garbage elsewhere? The production of lithium ion batteries and the consumption of cobalt is detrimental to the environment. There is tremendous pressure from green advocates who may regard declining health to be caused by factors that we can control. What about the food industry? Why do we need all of those additives? Why do 'we' keep stuffing our faces? Is it fair to 'blame' a decline in our apparent health on unsubstantiated claims? Humanity has always pointed the finger at someone else. Why doesn't the finger point back at us? I can choose to live a 'healthy' life but it is increasingly difficult because there is a myriad of conflicting advice. Huxley envisioned a society that was unable to make informed decisions because there was an apparent difficultly in being able to discern what was credible and what wad not credible. I can appreciate his concerns.

Minh Nguyen posted:

Perhaps one could also draw reference to the recent articles that pertain to the chemicals found in deodorants/anti-perspitants, detergents etc that are considered to be extremely volatile with respect to the VOC's that they release. These have been implicated in the formations of neoplasms/carcinomas. 

There was a study that found a correlation between diesel fumes and an apparent build up of toxicity in the brain but it was inconclusive: more research is necessary before any real conclusions may be inferred. 

I would agree that pollution needs to be reduced, but there are possibly many culprits that contribute to a degradation in public health. Rigorous scrutiny of scientific procedures and a plethora of double blind RCT's are required before one could consider that any real conclusions can be drawn.

You can't ethically do true double blind RTCs for this sort of thing of course. But your point is well made. Epidemiological studies, using rigorous data collection, and statistical analysis and with carefully considered controls and corrections is required. It is an area that is increasingly well-studied. I feel confident that valid conclusions can be drawn.

I find the discussion a bit strange as their are a lot of sources for pollution. But it’s perhaps the only way that car manufacturers get motivated to do something about the pollution degree - so in general I think it is good that the judge ruled like this.

While there is always room for improvement, the EPA here in the US has made vast strides in emmissions reductions over the past forty plus years. My guess is that Canada has been similar. In Europe, diesel has been a big problem, especially in cities, that is now being better understood and addressed thanks, in no small part, to our friends at VW. And to this, add the big push to electric cars in China and here in the US and there are some very positive trends going forward. But, as always, once a problem is identified, the solution always takes longer than we would wish.

Bert Schurink posted:

I find the discussion a bit strange as their are a lot of sources for pollution. But it’s perhaps the only way that car manufacturers get motivated to do something about the pollution degree - so in general I think it is good that the judge ruled like this.

The difference with vehicle emissions is that they are the one remaining significant source of air pollution that we encourage where there are large numbers of people also living. The public health issue, rather than more general environmental concerns are the driver here.

Industrial pollution is also significant but, like vehicle emissions it has been reduced and is not automatically concentrated where people live. Where industrial pollution coincides with housing it is also a public health issue. 

winkyincanada posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...erman-cities/9491680

I'm subjected daily to the emissions (and consequent health effects) from automobile tailpipes, as is everybody who lives in large towns or cities, or beside busy thoroughfares. Why do we put up with this? Is there a point in the future where automobile manufacturers are held to account in the same way that cigarette manufacturers have been?

Because it's relatively cheap to implement and makes life relatively easy for many people.

As a species, we tend to avoid long term cost and consequence in favour of short term advantage.

But your proposal to tax petrol and diesel cars off the roads isn't the panacea solution. There are other issues associated with living and working in large towns and cities that also need to be addressed......and not every 60 year old office worker is capable of cycling 25 mile round trips to work each day !

Some of us actually choose to live the countryside, both here and on Predator Ridge, rather than subject ourselves to the daily horrors of city life. A petrol/diesel car is far more practical to us than a push bike, a tram or an electric vehicle. I don't see any justification in penalising the likes of us county-dwellers in order to sort out the self-induced problems of town and city dwellers.

But I can see a tremendous possibility of banning ALL private vehicles from large towns and cities. Providing car parks on city boundaries with meaningful electrically powered public transport within and across such cities. London could almost do this tomorrow if it so wished. And Venice is already there. Just two examples of what I am trying to illustrate.

As some have alluded to above, I think a focus on car emissions has been at the expense of other pressing environmental issues.  And the reason is that the main problem is a fundamental lynchpin of our economic "well being".  Mass production (truly MASSIVE) in offshore locations has kept prices low for years - and it's been churning out every manner of (usually subpar) products cheaply.  Products are poorly made and/or designed to fail prematurely (even the iPhone was called out for planned obsolescence) so that manufacturers are in no danger of ever having to reduce production due to a fall in demand.  Prices are low, but if you have to buy 2 or 3 of an item over a span of time (due to product failure) what is gained?  This extra (and needless) manufacturing and consumption is using up resources and creating waste and pollution at an alarming rate.  This is off the radar for all current governments - population growth is the main worry - more of us to line up outside the dollar store and buy instant land fill.  

winkyincanada posted:

fatcat posted:

No.

But, If you take your children into a city you know suffers from high levels of pollution, you should be done for child abuse.

What if you already live there?

I’d suggest you move further away from the city, to an area with cleaner atmosphere. It would then be your choice whether to take your children into a polluted area for a limited time.

fatcat posted:

I’d suggest you move further away from the city, to an area with cleaner atmosphere. It would then be your choice whether to take your children into a polluted area for a limited time.

But, assuming people live in cities because they work there, wouldn’t moving away from the city just increase overall pollution as the workers need to get in everyday!

winkyincanada posted:

The difference with vehicle emissions is that they are the one remaining significant source of air pollution that we encourage where there are large numbers of people also living. 

That depends on your interpretation of significant.

By coincidence a few weeks ago I listened to BBC science program concerning the pollution and adverse health effects caused by shipping pollution.

400,000 premature deaths a year.

14,000,000 cases of asthma in children per year.

Do you think the above figures are significant?

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09r3nwz

Eloise posted:

fatcat posted:

I’d suggest you move further away from the city, to an area with cleaner atmosphere. It would then be your choice whether to take your children into a polluted area for a limited time.

But, assuming people live in cities because they work there, wouldn’t moving away from the city just increase overall pollution as the workers need to get in everyday!

That’s correct.

My conversation with Winky concerns his question concerning who should be prosecuted. He thinks a Japanese motor manufacturer should be held to account for causing pollution in a Canadian city. I’m suggesting (tongue in cheek) he should be held to account if he subjects his children to said pollution.

Eloise posted:

fatcat posted:

I’d suggest you move further away from the city, to an area with cleaner atmosphere. It would then be your choice whether to take your children into a polluted area for a limited time.

But, assuming people live in cities because they work there, wouldn’t moving away from the city just increase overall pollution as the workers need to get in everyday!

Unfortunately, wind patterns are no respecters of city boundaries, in the same way as industrial pollution does not respect national boundaries. Here in post industrial UK, we suffer from air pollution generated in mainland Europe which is air-borne, particularly in the South East. Not that we don't carry a heavy responsibility for many generations of home brewed air pollution which we have no doubt foisted on neighbouring countries.

What is interesting though is the air pullution map at http://airindex.eea.europa.eu, which appears to show that the majority of European air pollution hot spots are in eastern France and particularly Germany - no doubt one factor in the recent decision by Stuttgart and Dusseldorf to ban diesel cars in the not too distant future. 

As a diesel car owner (Mercedes/Daimler) I am not relishing the prospect of the resale value of my 4 year old car plummeting, if British cities follow suit...

In the US we cleaned up our environment and saved a lot of money on salaries by moving our manufactures to China. Then we complained that the Chinese "took our jobs."

Clemenza posted:

In the US we cleaned up our environment and saved a lot of money on salaries by moving our manufactures to China. Then we complained that the Chinese "took our jobs."

It was "The Man" at the top of each company that moved your manufacturing to China and thus "gave them your jobs". Nothing short of short-term self interest by "The Man"

Much the same here in the UK.

To a large extent, it's consumers who dictate what is made, where it is made and and how much pollution it causes. And most of us are short-sighted, self-interested, greedy things. Even if I won't admit it !

I'm traveling to Delhi this weekend. Now, there is pollution.

Last time I was in Delhi, it was for a connecting flight to Hyderabad. When the plane took off and we were 3km high, it did exit the smog clouds and the sky was clear again.

Fascinating that people in North America / Europe make such an item about this.

I used to work in Athens for several short periods of about three months each back in the early 80’s.

Cars with Odd numbered registration plates were allowed in on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, even numbers on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

Most of use simply had two cars.............

Don Atkinson posted:

I used to work in Athens for several short periods of about three months each back in the early 80’s.

Cars with Odd numbered registration plates were allowed in on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, even numbers on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

Most of use simply had two cars.............

Yes, that trick works for my colleagues / friends in India as well. Whatever the government does, they find a workaround.

Ardbeg10y posted:

Yes, that trick works for my colleagues / friends in India as well. Whatever the government does, they find a workaround.

Ultimately if you want to remove a significant number of vehicles from a city centre ... the only option is to ban those vehicles completely.

Which requires a consummate investment in public transport.

Oh and replacing private cars with taxis isn't part of the answer either!

Eloise posted:

Ardbeg10y posted:

Yes, that trick works for my colleagues / friends in India as well. Whatever the government does, they find a workaround.

Ultimately if you want to remove a significant number of vehicles from a city centre ... the only option is to ban those vehicles completely.

Which requires a consummate investment in public transport.

Oh and replacing private cars with taxis isn't part of the answer either!

Indeed. Last time I was in Hyderabad, a guy pointed out to me that a significant part of the cars were taxis. I remember 40% taxis  / 60% normal cars or so.

When I was for the first time in London - somewhere early nineties, all of Oxford street were black cabs and red busses. No normal cars.

Eloise posted:

Ardbeg10y posted:

Yes, that trick works for my colleagues / friends in India as well. Whatever the government does, they find a workaround.

Ultimately if you want to remove a significant number of vehicles from a city centre ... the only option is to ban those vehicles completely.

Which requires a consummate investment in public transport.

Oh and replacing private cars with taxis isn't part of the answer either!

You are right Eloise.  

As I noted above, London could ban private cars tomorrow !

Venice doesen’t have any today, nor does it have any cyclists!

Many towns in the U.K., eg Oxford, have extensive “park and Ride” schemes.

The only cities in the U.K. that i’m Not sure about, are Birmingham and Manchester. The rest could cope with Train, Bus and Park & Ride with very little new infrastructure.

Don Atkinson posted:

The only cities in the U.K. that i’m Not sure about, are Birmingham and Manchester. The rest could cope with Train, Bus and Park & Ride with very little new infrastructure.

I'm not sure that most busses aren't still a problem - being diesel powered.  But I do agree with your point mostly (though I would disagree partly and see cycling as part of the solution not part of the problem).

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The only cities in the U.K. that i’m Not sure about, are Birmingham and Manchester. The rest could cope with Train, Bus and Park & Ride with very little new infrastructure.

I'm not sure that most busses aren't still a problem - being diesel powered.  But I do agree with your point mostly (though I would disagree partly and see cycling as part of the solution not part of the problem).

Change, almost any change, doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. And with time and a clear strategy improvements are incorporated along the way.

Let's put the cycle issue to one side - I merely mentioned Venice to illustrate that cycling doesn't HAVE to be part of the solution and as I mentioned above, not every 60 year old accountant is capable of cycling a 25 mile round trip to the city office every day - even though winky is (oh, and Durham City isn't every cycling office typist's dream either)

Battery-powered busses could be phased in. Some towns or cities, let's say like Croydon, Birmingham and Manchester, might justify a tram system. Others, such as Liverpool, Newcastle or Edinburgh a metro system - although I don't think Edinburgh's system was such a great success ! So it doesn't all have to be diesel busses and it doesn't all have to be in place by Monday 5th March 2018

The biggest obstacle to change is usually the Politicians !