London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed as cause of death
cbsnews.com
cbsnews.com
Ultimately in a system where people bid for housing this sort of thing is bound to happen. It's notably cheaper to live on a main road, near a pollution hotspot, etc; there's also commonly social housing in those sorts of locations, which makes moving less about marginal income and more about navigating a bureaucracy (if you're paying below market rent you may need double or triple the amount to move to a nearby privately rented place).
In my view we should heavily tax diesel cars out of existence, at least in busy cities. The alternatives are to either demolish large amounts of housing (the South Circular Road and A2 in London are lined with residential; so too are most major roads in the capital), to basically delete the road network, or to accept these deaths as a way of life.
I agree that National Rail pricing is absurd. We should fix that. There's this silly two-tier thing going on whereby getting a journey within the Oyster zone is trivial and getting one outside (i.e. most of the bloody country) is this escapade of finding advance tickets, finding the cheapest time, etc.
Ultimately though, things are going to get more expensive. A poster below commented something along the lines of "so only the rich should drive in London" - and that's what's going to end up happening, unless you ban driving entirely, which would be the nuclear option.
Not all problems, particularly those to do with pollution, have an easy "everyone wins" answer. It might just be the case that things we previously considered normal and standard just won't be possible if we want to preserve health and the climate.
There are stations like the ones you're suggesting. Forest Hill has free on-street parking less than five minutes from the station, but that would increase journey time significantly with the switch to another mode of transport with family in tow, and make a day trip much less feasible.
Fair point about some things not being possible though. Better to reduce the number of people travelling if it means a much cleaner, healthier London. I've even considered trying to commute to London from Brighton via bike during the summer, staying a night with a friend and riding back the next afternoon... That would be much nicer if I didn't feel like I was inhaling exhaust fumes for half the journey.
(Feels like it'd be a bloody pain to drive to from Brighton!)
The last part of your comment is what really hits home for me.
People driving private cars around damage other modes of transport. Cycling becomes less pleasant (near passes, inhaling shit, etc); buses are caught in congestion; everything becomes less dense; etc.
(Sydenham is OK as a backup - a bit further south of the station on the side roads. Not as convenient as Forest Hill though!)
Edit: I seem to remember a study about health of cyclists (although don't have the citation so take with a pinch of salt) and it was universally better except in cities. Either crashes, pollution, or both, meant that cycling didn't make a difference to cyclists' health overall.
Please just use the train.
I disagree with your point about public transport massively improving since the congestion charge though. In what respect? I've been regularly travelling in London since the mid 90s and haven't really noticed much beyond the re-opening of what used to be the East London Line. I get the feeling that things are starting to improve now, after some serious public investment, but it still feels like too little. Until peak-time commuters aren't packed into trains like sausage meat I doubt much will shift in terms of behaviour.
Buses have improved, there are far more though I wish they were electric.
At the moment it only covers a very small area of the central congestion zone (smaller than Zone 1).
If anything the pollution there is likely to become worse as it forms the official diversion.
We already see this; Marylebone Road, the current northern boundary of the ULEZ and Congestion Charge zone, is one of the most polluted roads in the capital.
I work around there. Me and my team actively avoid walking along the main road for that reason.
[1] Ultra Low Emission Zone https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone
I never noticed this. Is there some reason for it or just your general impression?
These people are effectively in a sort of rent-control style scenario in which moving out and in to privately rented accommodation might mean doubling the rent and moving from a stable long-term tenancy to a yearly thing.
They technically have the ability to move whilst being heavily discouraged from doing so.
This is quite different to, for example, someone who owns or rents a house that costs 25% more than an equivalent one in a side street, say. It's more of a cost benefit analysis for them.
There is however the issue still that eventually, someone is going to end up living there, because housing in London isn't going to be left empty if it exists.
Strong opinion you have there. How much do you know about Diesel engines that utilize DEF? And how do you weigh NOX output against that from a petrol engine?
Or do you have strong opinions without knowing the actual science behind this? Because I’d like to see your sources that show modern diesels should be taxed out of existence.
Edit: Nope, turns out I received no support for the argument at all but rather OP really just means for all cars to be banned or at least taxed so only rich people can drive in London. Because when I go to Singapore with its like tax model I see equality, and opportunity!
A blue-badge style disabled exemption, and more frequent inspections for things like emergency services / trade vehicles. Done.
The diehards can use electric cars if they wish.
Lewisham/Hither Green, where this girl lived, has frequent trains into Central London (15-20mins), buses all over the place, and Google Maps' current estimate to cycle in to London is 33 mins (vs 36 mins for driving).
Basically any hour of the day people will be rattling up and down the South Circular, up and down the rat runs, etc.
I used to live near a long arterial road. I would do things like count the cars whilst waiting for the bus. It had buses every 15 minutes, and between each bus you'd have way more cars than the number of people that would fit on a bus.
Unless we say they just wouldn't make that journey otherwise, increasing taxes on private cars can help with the transition that could make that bus every 7 minutes instead (which would eventually be self fulfilling due to fare intake).
You're right about the buses and passenger number, but I don't think they'll easily replace fast rail routes. I used to live in Forest Hill, which has the south circular running through it. I tried taking buses into the centre of town but it took ages, although I suppose you might be able to run "express" buses with fewer stops if there was more space on the road.
I just hope that whoever the mayor is during the next few administrations uses the ULEV to exponentially ratchet up the pressure on cars, so there's a breathing space that can be filled by public transport before people jump to electric cars and we end up with both cleaner air and less congested roads.
- I've driven in from Leeds and am going to Brighton and it's cheaper than the train?
- I could go by bus but it would be 50 mins as opposed to 20?
- I just want to drive my car and I don't care?
- I've got a case of champagne I need to get to a friend?
- Something else?
It's pretty mysterious. Mind you these days it's hard to tell if a car's a taxi or not with Uber and things but I wonder if the Mayor's office has any data on reasons for vehicle use?
I own a car and have used it to drive in on occasion just because I can. It's fun to roll about the streets and do stuff like drive down Shaftesbury Avenue.
This is precisely why taxation is necessary, because people don't realise that what they're doing is an issue in aggregate. If you had to pay the cost of a taxi to get to the local supermarket then people would figure out alternatives like cycling/taking the bus fairly quickly (and the supermarkets would adjust their business models, you'd see smaller ones more dispersed).
I think part of the issue is that people can't seem to juggle the concept of something being fun and good but ultimately damaging. I might enjoy a pint every now and then, but I'm fairly happy about the fact that we tax it.
Why? Why not change motability so that it only includes electric vehicles?
Or are you suggesting banning all vehicles? In that case what's wrong with public transport/mobility scooters?
I'm not sure that mobility scooters / wheelchairs would be adequately handled by all public transport at the moment even in London, there would probably be a lot of repressed demand, or people would just stay indoors.
A 60-person bus might have one or two wheelchair spots; a mobility scooter won't go on them at all; I very rarely see either on the trains despite it being technically possible. A lot of tube stations are not step-free.
I'm not suggesting banning vehicles; I'm suggesting taxing them appropriate to the damage they cause so that fewer people see "go for a drive through tons of residential streets" as a normal / accepted thing to do.
For example: "Our findings add to the growing body of evidence that air pollution may play a role in autism, as well as in other neurodevelopmental disorders." [1]
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#Health_effects
The peak is at 623¹ in 1891. After another minipeak at 409 in 1935, it went down fast to 26 in 1994 and is now 16.
That's not to say this isn't a problem today. But it was much worse in the past, and this girl is far from the first to die from it.
¹ suspended particulate matter (SPM), measured in micrograms per cubic metres
There is no hard line between someone who has rolled the dice on bad odds and come off badly, and someone who has rolled the dice on moderate or good odds but still come out badly.
For this girl, there likely would have been genetic factors or simply bad luck which compounded air pollution, but it’s difficult to say that air pollution didn’t contribute significantly as one of the causes of her death. And that is important to know, to be able to reduce deaths and ongoing poor health in the future.
As electronic medical records become more prevalent, this is going to become more important. For instance, you could look back through patients with a cause of death like this, and pick out the frequency and timing of hospitalization as linked with local episodes of air pollution, that could then be used to inform advice to patients currently suffering from the same symptoms in the same pattern. You could essentially join together medical care, epidemiology and public health in a symbiosis which could be hugely beneficial.
Some days HN goes from its usual baseline mechanical callousness to outright horror film.
Back to the topic, I wish we could ban diesel ASAP. I passed through Oxford Street a few times when it was virtually shut off by the protesters last month, so none of the diesel-burning black cabs not busses were there. It was much, much more pleasant than any other busy London street, almost serene, if there were not that many shoppers...
* https://ggwash.org/view/71256/why-are-city-planners-so-afrai...
Removed from that though, you only need to make a few assumptions to come to the conclusion it would be anyway.
If we assume, say, that people would prefer to live on a side street over a main road, and then away from a junction rather than on a junction, from that it stems that it's going to be cheaper to own/rent a place in the most polluted areas.
There are differences in income and wealth by race.
The specific London problem is traffic, and maybe added to by the current fashion for log stoves. You get the constant thick taste of the fumes about 10 miles outside the centre, and it's there permanently.
Just about everywhere inside the north and south circular, which is more like 4 or 5 miles outside the centre, is badly polluted, but the south circular exceptionally so - it's almost constantly gridlocked and wasn't built for the volume of traffic it has. South Circular makes it sound like a major road or city motorway - it's used as one, and was probably intended to one day be rebuilt as one. Except it's just a regular one lane each way street for most of it, with lights and junctions, and lined with houses and shops.
So dirt and grit if you leave windows open, or washing out, black gunk in the nostrils and the constant taste.
Locals get used to it to some extent. It strikes us every single time we visit the relatives down there.
Does the U.K. not have similar rules, or are all of these just grandfathered in?
"...the burning of solid fuels (such as house coal and wood) in our homes is the largest contributor of harmful particulate-matter (PM) emissions."
"This makes up 38% of our national PM emissions while, in comparison, industrial combustion is 16% and road transport 12%."
Wood stoves appear to have side-stepped much of our clean air legislation which is woefully out of date anyway. Coal fires have become fairly rare over the same period, so that's mostly down to wood stoves. Haven't heard of any requirements for catalytic converters, which seems a sensible idea.
In my lifetime we've gone from almost nowhere selling wood except wood yards, to everywhere does - mainly in the last 10 years - garages, corner shops, supermarkets. In neat little single use plastic bags. This government has lost 3 court cases on air pollution, and their current targets kick out real action well into the long grass: 2030.
It's ridiculous.
[1] https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/wood-burning-stoves/article/...
CO2 is something entirely different.
Particulate filters I think are required to be fitted for the last 10 years or so, the problem is they require frequent high speed travel to function properly, and people have routinely removed them.
Seems like you haven’t been to the UK or Europe. The London busses and cabs are really bad. Plus all the other diesel cars with NOx emissions way past the legal limits.
Edit: I see many people here like fireworks. But if we as humanity can’t handle this crazy stupid pollution source, we also cannot do anything else. Forget handling diesel car pollution or improving public transport.
Sensationalism is the biggest threat to people accepting climate change in a wholesome way. Take a stand. End Sensationalism.
For death by firearm discharge, the coroner would indicate W34, X74, X94, X95, Y35, or Y36 (depending on the reported circumstances: suicide, homocide, legal action, or war). [1] This cause of death is readily determined by the autopsy and reported immediate circumstances.
Changing the cause of death to air pollution rather than asthma (J45) requires lengthy investigation into years of the deceased's lifetime. It would be infeasible to use that as an actual classification.
---
An actually comparable (and practically relevant) situation is changing cause of death from lung cancer (C34) to smoking. "Smoking" is not a cause of death recognized by the CDC, WHO, or any other health organization; it's a underlying factor. This is why you'll see statistics on smoking-related deaths.
[1] http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online2005...
In both cases, powerful parties have a huge incentive to use semantics to excuse the blame that should rightfully be placed at their feet.
Which is why it's outrageous to use the phrase "respiratory failure" to imply that this is clickbait and not a real issue.
Is this irony?
Edit, to add: just because something is true does not make it relevant. It is true that if this woman never would have been born she would not have had respiratory failure caused by pollution and this article never would have been written... but how is stating that helpful?
I do not claim to know what is the author true intention or whether its helpful or not.
> [..] he is told that his friend has died of "heart failure." It is only later that he realizes that all deaths can be described that way.
But isn't "air pollution" an overly ambiguous cause of death?
Could be lung cancer, injury, asphyxiation, etc.
It seems a bit like listing "sugar" as the cause of death.
It seems there was legislation, enacted to protect people, that was ignored for years. The child’s death was not of their own doing, so I’m not sure why folks are even mentioning sugar or cheeseburgers.
Asthma is induced by both genetic and environmental factors. [0] So air pollution causing asthma is hardly a stretch. Especially if you've been exposed 1/3 of your life at such a young age. She was 9 years old. Having developed lungs and going into that area is majorly different than developing lungs in that area.
Example: If a person made to ingest something that leads to immediate cardiac or respiratory failure we call it "poisoned to death".
Same for "being stabbed" rather than "cardiac failure due to blood loss"
ICD-10 has X85 "Assault by drugs, medicaments and biological substances" and X99 "Assault by sharp object". [1]
But it is unprecedented (AFAIK) to specify an external cause that is so far removed from the point of death.
E.g. assuredly people have died from the long-term effects of tanning, but "sun tan" is not considered to be a cause of a death.
[1] http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online2005...
It's a bit dramatic, but could also be useful?