On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.Â* It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where
they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to
survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city
locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.