Forum Topic

Latest 'Air Pollution' myth - by Imperial, etc

This is utter nonsense - and transparently so. Imperial, and Kings College London, both very amateurish institutions desperate for publicity - and yet more grant funding, have pedalled this utterly ridiculous myth for 10 years now. The National Physical Lab in Teddington, the real experts, have stated (till they are blue in the face) London's particulate levels have collapsed 90% in the past 20 years to levels "that are now barely measurable."If they are wrong - where are the bodies, which hospital is overflowing the same number of patients now suffering from Covd??Truth: there aren't any.London' air is incredibly fresh and clean: virtually no industry, plus the introduction of green diesel in 1987, ultra-fine diesel engine filters, cat converters, stop-start, electric engined vehicles. Go to Cairo if you want to breathe really filthy air..Back in the 1980s the same Universities tried to claim 'contaminated land' was killing 35,000 people a year in the UK - bogus then, bogus now, different generation of academic - same old scam..I have studied the UK's REAL environmental problems for 40 years - unlike these truly worthless 'academics'. Real problems include huge volumes of human sewage in our rivers, and over-fishing by foreign trawlers. The biggest is, of course, mass immigration, which has led to a greater % of English countryside disappearing under rabbit hutch housing than the % of Amazon rainforest lost to agriculture. Yes, really. And who is protesting against this tragic loss of countryside? No one - certainly not the rogues at Imperial College..

Marcus Gibson ● 1825d25 Comments

Simon, friends who live in the end house of a terrace in Enfield had a similar problem.  When they came to unblock the drain for the nth time Thames Water left letters making the same plea in all the houses. They realise the residents who are unlucky enough to be at the receiving end of the problem will be reluctant to ask their neighbours to behave responsibly.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 1805d

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNKQ1NkHo_L/Well this is an interesting poster.  I think it is or was in Upper Richmond Road.  Especially for Putney.  The website is interesting too as it shows who has been lobbying against cleaner air.And BTW there are petitions and complaints and lobbying about other things like the burning of the Amazon rainforest.  That smoke would have made breathing harder for those with a respiratory disease - but apparently that is 'just a little flu'...  Who knows - maybe he feels a little differently about it now?

Philippa Bond ● 1809d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/09/pollutionwatch-aviation-shutdown-shows-can-clean-up-air?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Philippa Bond ● 1818d

When I first looked at this years ago there did not seem to be a definition of "flushable" eg it shouldn't just be something that fits into a loo and goes just out of sight!You can see the problems here:https://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/newsroom/latest-news/2019/oct/wet-wipe-ruling-welcomed-by-thames-waterThames Water certainly used to have some pamphlets that they would give out/send out.  Maybe they should call at all the houses.It is very unfair that the person at the end of the line can get the trouble or just the person who takes responsibilty.

Philippa Bond ● 1818d

@Richard 17.19Yes I can read, and can understand posts.  However I am curious as to why Simon Sharp would have that opinion. Perhaps let him answer for himself?

Sue Hammond ● 1819d

Well, that really is amazing: man writes obviously crazed post and someone describes it as "such insightful comnent."Well, I suppose it does give you some insight into the mind of Marcus, though that's not an area I particularly want to explore...

Richard Carter ● 1819d

Mybe read Simon's post again: he said it "looks like" not "he was someone who got rejected." In other words, he was stating an opinion.

Richard Carter ● 1819d

@Simon Sharp"Looks like someone who got rejected by world class institutions like Imperial and Kings is still bitter about his rejections."Do you have corroborated evidence of this statement or is it just a disrespectful assumption?

Sue Hammond ● 1819d

Hooray Marcus for such insightful comment. I don't normally bother with the bigots on this forum but your comment should be on the front page. When are PutneySW15 going to adopt balanced reporting? THIS SHOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGE! I am posting your comment in all the Facebook pages I can.

Sue Rolfe ● 1819d

"Was privatising something as important to the population as water a good idea?"An interesting article Philippa and a reminder of the failure by all 3 major parties! Again despite privatisation the customer and tax payer still carry the risk. This is the case with a lot of the so-called privatisations. People often overlook the pension deficits that the privatised companies have run up - and in some cases the pension liabilities have remained with the taxpayer.As I said I have no firm views on how investment is raised but transparency is key!

Ed Robinson ● 1822d

Don't get me started on wet wipes Philippa. We live in a small close with a shared communal sewage drain. At least twice a year Thames have to come out to unblock it. The culprit is always wet wipes. I go round the other 11 houses (I know which house is the culprit but don't want to be seen to lay blame) and implore them to put wet wipes, sanitary stuff, cotton wool sticks etc in the bin. May as well not have bothered. Some people are just pig ignorant/uncaring!

Simon Knight ● 1822d

Thames Water is much smaller having sold off parts of its business.Was privatising something as important to the population as water a good idea?https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4313638/Vultures-left-Thames-Water-10bn-debt.htmlHow do you educate people to not flush things that they shouldn't eg wet wipes when in this political world marketing is king?  Their vans are brilliant at advertising this but people are too self-centred and  short-sighted to care. I'd like to see all those makeover programmes on TV spend more time giving more consideration to things other than decadent personal dreams and desires.

Philippa Bond ● 1822d

Thames Water is much smaller having sold off parts of its business.Was privatising something as important to the population as water a good idea?https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4313638/Vultures-left-Thames-Water-10bn-debt.htmlHow do you educate people to not flush things that they shouldn't eg wet wipes when in this political world marketing is king?  Their vans are brilliant at advertising this but people are too self-centred and  short-sighted to care. I'd like to see all those makeover programmes on TV spend more time giving more consideration to things other than decadent personal dreams and desires.

Philippa Bond ● 1822d

Philippa interesting read on the government's Web pages:This from March 2021:"This latest conviction brings the total amount of fines levied against Thames Water since 2017 to £24.4 million for 9 cases of water pollution across Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire"https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thames-water-fined-23-million-for-foreseeable-pollutionhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2019/thames-water-epa-data-report-2019

Ed Robinson ● 1822d

Thames Water is heavily regulated.  I was interested recently in why so many people were not on water meters because as was noted above that helps in finding water leaks.  You sometimes find TW engineers out at night when it is quiet listening for them with equipment.  I found that a lot of old buildings had a shared water supply.  It seems that many buildings are renovated and refurbished and built today without as much input from the water company as they perhaps should. A lot of London's building still have lead piping which I would have thought the inhabitants would really prefer not to have.Our rivers are also poisoned with run off from roads.  It isn't just emissions from vehicles that are a problem it is tyre dust with all its chemical residues. It may be that we need to make more changes to our pipework and drains to change this.

Philippa Bond ● 1823d

The poster has posted on here back in 2016 on air pollution also.

David Ainsworth ● 1824d

Ed. The whole post is odd and incoherent. What is commonly called a rant? Perhaps the thoughts of someone who's just lost a research grant then spent too long in the bar commiserating with friends? Can't be that, the bars are all shut! There might be some valid points about sewage but they're sort of lost in the midst of unsubstantiated claims?

Michael Ixer ● 1824d

A bit odd to mention river pollution and not mention the water companies and regulation.Decades of underfunding before privatisation. Investment was one of the drivers. Did crown immunity also protect them too?? Not exactly a rosey history!I believe more than 70% are owned by offshore institutions with some complex layers according to this article.What ever the funding model I believe the closer the owners are to the business the better for the consumers/customers.The logic of the original post escapes me!This from the FT in 2017:https://www.ft.com/content/5413ebf8-24f1-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16"Thames Water was privatised under the Thatcher government. In the first few years, privatisation allowed the water companies to raise money to meet European directives on water quality. The cleanliness of beaches, for example, improved substantially after privatisation, says Sir Ian.But under a complex regulatory system, water companies are set a limit on the price they can charge customers based on a combination of operating and capital expenditure. Sir Ian says the system rewards companies for spending money on capital investments whether or not it is in the interest of customers. This often comes at the expense of more mundane operational tasks, such as preventing sewage from seeping into the water, stopping leaks on its 10,000 miles of pipes and installing water meters — one of the most effective means of preventing water waste."

Ed Robinson ● 1824d

Not only that, but he's demonstrated clearly why he was rejected: wild assertions, completely unreferenced. On this evidence you wouldn't even give him a job as a cleaner.

Richard Carter ● 1824d

Looks like someone who got rejected by world class institutions like Imperial and Kings is still bitter about his rejections.

Simon Sharp ● 1824d

This is the Imperial College report. It would be useful for Marcus and Barbara to point out which points in it they disagree with and where the data and deductions are lacking. I have to declare an interest because as an IC graduate I'm not unbiased - although I must admit I've recently followed their research at the data sciences and physics disciplines - I don't think many would dispute IC's contributions to CERN with regard to particle physics and more generally to quantum theories?https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_health_burden_of_current_air_pollution_and_future_health_benefits_of_mayoral_air_quality_policies_january2020.pdf

Michael Ixer ● 1825d

Haven't had time to look in detail but the 2014 report does seem to show drops over the (approximately) last 20 years. However, if one looks at the graphs p34 of this report it coincides with reductions prior to the introduction of LEZs for HGVs in 2008 and for other commercial/PSV/utility vehicles in 2012. Hence,proves the value of and need for ULEZ externtion later this year?https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat05/1611011544_Airborne_Particulate_Concentrations_and_Numbers_in_the_UK_Annual_Report_2014.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjYu8nmkODvAhU7_7sIHUWwDekQFjAEegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw1wuQuUBHDsDle0sn2YIqEn(Im not sure the hyperlink works, may seen to copy and paste link into browser address bar.}

Michael Ixer ● 1825d

Any chance you might produce a single shred of evidence to back up these claims? Otherwise it's just a random posting really isnt it?https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-no2-pollution-toxic-lockdown-b900492.html

Matt Palmer ● 1825d

Did you see the "Putney lungs" put up by Mums for Lungs next to East Putney tube station?  They turned from white to grey in less than three weeks.https://twitter.com/MumsForLungs/status/1377917098043830273I think you should take your dangerous myths elsewhere.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1825d

Agree.

Barbara Stevens ● 1825d