| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London pollution monitoring
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 |
London pollution monitoring
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. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
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. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster. True, though particulates seem to be one of the main causes of urban ill-health. That's now a much bigger factor than global warming, at least as far as local regulations are concerned. |
London pollution monitoring
On 10/05/2019 10:52, Recliner wrote:
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. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster. True, though particulates seem to be one of the main causes of urban ill-health. That's now a much bigger factor than global warming, at least as far as local regulations are concerned. My point was that there are several types of particulate, acknowledged in the article. The exercise only monitored one of them. By concentrating on one of them we run the risk of a simplistic "fix" at best leaving the others as they are or at worst exacerbating the problems caused by the others. Which is what happened with the diesel disaster. By only addressing the CO2 problem they made the health problem far worse. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:52, Recliner wrote: 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. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster. True, though particulates seem to be one of the main causes of urban ill-health. That's now a much bigger factor than global warming, at least as far as local regulations are concerned. My point was that there are several types of particulate, acknowledged in the article. The exercise only monitored one of them. By concentrating on one of them we run the risk of a simplistic "fix" at best leaving the others as they are or at worst exacerbating the problems caused by the others. Which is what happened with the diesel disaster. By only addressing the CO2 problem they made the health problem far worse. Yes, that's true. |
London pollution monitoring
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. |
London pollution monitoring
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. 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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote: 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. 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. At the time when the government were pushing for diesel cars, all the green lobby were bemoaning how much more CO2 petrol cars emitted than diesel, so all petrol cars must be replaced immediately by diesel ones. When it was pointed out that petrol ones were cleaner in other ways than diesel, they effectively just put their fingers in their ears "La, la, la. I can't hear you. Got to reduce CO2 to save the planet" Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent to a petrol car doing 40 MPG. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
London pollution monitoring
JNugent wrote:
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. Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so well. |
London pollution monitoring
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.] |
London pollution monitoring
On 11/05/2019 14:03, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
JNugent wrote: 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. Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so well. Does that mean that the government* is always right, even when it holds serial contrary views? Or does it mean that the victims were silly for believing Brown and co? [* "Government" here meaning the regime under Blair and Brown who rejigged the car taxation system so as to incentivise the purchase of diesel cars and latterly, Khan in London, who effectively has swingeing taxation powers over people who are not allowed to vote for or (especially) against him.] |
London pollution monitoring
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
On Sat, 11 May 2019 11:43:06 +0100
John Williamson wrote: On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote: 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. 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. At the time when the government were pushing for diesel cars, all the green lobby were bemoaning how much more CO2 petrol cars emitted than diesel, so all petrol cars must be replaced immediately by diesel ones. When it was pointed out that petrol ones were cleaner in other ways than diesel, they effectively just put their fingers in their ears "La, la, la. I can't hear you. Got to reduce CO2 to save the planet" CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will still be around for thousands of years to come. Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very limited range. They're 1980s engineering. the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent to a petrol car doing 40 MPG. That seems a bit pessimistic to me, especialy given UK generation has run without coal now for a week. |
London pollution monitoring
|
London pollution monitoring
JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 14:03, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: JNugent wrote: 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. Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so well. Does that mean that the government* is always right, even when it holds serial contrary views? Whoosh! Or does it mean that the victims were silly for believing Brown and co? [* "Government" here meaning the regime under Blair and Brown who rejigged the car taxation system so as to incentivise the purchase of diesel cars and latterly, Khan in London, who effectively has swingeing taxation powers over people who are not allowed to vote for or (especially) against him.] |
London pollution monitoring
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... On 12/05/2019 10:36, wrote: Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very limited range. They're 1980s engineering. My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes sense. walking or bicycle even more so tim |
London pollution monitoring
On 12/05/2019 16:26, tim... wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes sense. walking or bicycle even more so It's nice that you know more about my personal circumstances than I do, so you can make better decisions about my lifestyle than I can. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
London pollution monitoring
On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:51:05 +0100
John Williamson wrote: On 12/05/2019 10:36, wrote: Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very limited range. They're 1980s engineering. My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes sense. It gets charged twice a week. Also, the most important piece of safety equipment on any car is the squishy bit between the seat and the That statement works if you're assuming crashes only happen when *you* make a mistake and so try to avoid doing so. Often people are injured or killed through no fault of their own when they're hit by another vehicle. In that situation your chances in a G Wiz will be little better than being on a motorbike. |
London pollution monitoring
|
London pollution monitoring
On Sun, 12 May 2019 21:26:55 +0100
Optimist wrote: On Sun, 12 May 2019 09:36:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote: [snipped] CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will still be around for thousands of years to come. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but far less potent in that respect than water vapour - but no-one suggests trying to reduce emissions of water vapour! Neither gas is a pollutant, they I can't believe people are still rehashing this tired old excuse for not cutting CO2 emissions. https://skepticalscience.com/water-v...nhouse-gas.htm https://www.newscientist.com/article...dioxide-isnt-t he-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ are both essential for photosynthesis without which all life would cease. Moreover, horticulturists deliberately increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations in greenhouses and polytunnels to boost crop yields. *sigh*. You might as well state that because all plants require water why not plant them underwater. Also there are different type of photosynthesis and when the temperature goes up the most important one stops working properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation "The C3 plants, originating during Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras, predate the C4 p lants and still represent approximately 95% of Earth's plant biomass, including important food crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans and barley." "C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas " And just for you: http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/bi...rate-of-photos ynthesis.html |
London pollution monitoring
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. |
London pollution monitoring
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
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. |
London pollution monitoring
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? 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. I think you have badly missed the point. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote: 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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and coined the phrase. You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you? 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. I think you have badly missed the point. I don't think so. |
London pollution monitoring
On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote: 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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -Â* and coined the phrase. You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you? Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London pollution monitoring
JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote: 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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and coined the phrase. You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you? TaL? What's that? |
London pollution monitoring
On 13/05/2019 23:01, Recliner wrote:
TaL? What's that? Transport Against London -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to 400 Blows - 1984 - ...If I Kissed Her I'd Have To Kill Her First... |
I don't think one needs to be a conspiracy theorist to believe
that some anti-motor car fanatics have an agenda and that they use health and environmental issues to justify their policies. The Mayor, TfL and my local authority, the London Borough of Waltham Forest are all prime examples. I've had a "mini-Holland" installed in my neighbourhood, and not far from me Whipps Cross roundabout has been converted into a traffic-light-ridden mess. Both have increased car emissions but in both cases LBWF claimed they were improving the environment. |
London pollution monitoring
On 13/05/2019 21:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote: On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote: 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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -Â* and coined the phrase. You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you? Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said. If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong. When something looks like a duck... |
London pollution monitoring
On 13/05/2019 23:01, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote: 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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and coined the phrase. You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you? TaL? What's that? Transport against London. They like to pretend they're in favour of transport for London, but behave as though restricting transport is their job. They must know their own business best. |
London pollution monitoring
On 14/05/2019 14:45, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 21:27, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote: On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote: 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. So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"? Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and coined the phrase. You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you? Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said. If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong. When something looks like a duck... As I said, you've totally missed my point, but carry on duck hunting in a turkey farm if it pleases you. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00? https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/...cid=spartandhp There is no environmental difference between a car parked with its engine running and a car needlessly stationary because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus. |
London pollution monitoring
In message , at 11:23:51 on Sun, 30
Jun 2019, Robin9 remarked: Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest each be fined £ 100.00? http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd There is no environmental difference between a car parked with its engine running and a car needlessly stationery that envelopes a whole range of other issues. because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus. -- Roland Perry |
London pollution monitoring
On 30/06/2019 11:23, Robin9 wrote:
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest each be fined £ 100.00? http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd There is no environmental difference between a car parked with its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus. Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc. Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit there in front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full brake light intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr... By the way, as a former bus driver, I am not keen on the way some people overtake buses when they're at stops. I once had a car belt past me and then do a sharp 90-degree left turn into the side road 6ft in front of the bus, just as I had just started to pull away from a stop (and yes I was indicating, and in plenty of time). A young woman holding an 18-month old child lost her footing and the kid banged his head on the luggage rack rails. I was there for over an hour waiting for an ambulance and the police, fortunately the little boy didn't sustain any serious injury. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
London pollution monitoring
"Robin9" wrote in message ... Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest each be fined £ 100.00? http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd There is no environmental difference between a car parked with its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus. ITYF pavements are widened to make it easier for disabled to get on and of the bus tim |
London pollution monitoring
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message ... On 30/06/2019 11:23, Robin9 wrote: Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest each be fined £ 100.00? http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd There is no environmental difference between a car parked with its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus. Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc. probably less than 50% of cars on the road have start stop technology It will be about decade before it reaches 95% Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the handbrake on, does it? didn't know that don't have one Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road is flat. what's the point? By the way, as a former bus driver, I am not keen on the way some people overtake buses when they're at stops. I once had a car belt past me and then do a sharp 90-degree left turn into the side road 6ft in front of the bus, just as I had just started to pull away from a stop (and yes I was indicating, and in plenty of time). So just because of one idiot, we all have to dawdle down the road waiting behind the bus at every stop, just because you don't want us to overtake? tim |
London pollution monitoring
On 30/06/2019 16:57, tim... wrote:
ITYF pavements are widened to make it easier for disabled to get on and of the bus In most cases, widening at stops is to allow the bus to pull away from the stop without having to wait to be let out by another driver, as well as making it easier for the bus to get close to the kerb. The DDA bit is the high kerb, which makes it easier for disabled people and buggy users to get on and off. Wheelchair users still need to use the ramp, but buggies can be lifted over the small step, and it's easier for people with limited mobility to get on and off, so they can avoid having to ask for the ramp to be deployed. Almost all TfL stops have the high kerb, and the projections are mostly on routes through residential areas, where the residents park on the road, and tend to block easy access to the stop by buses. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
London pollution monitoring
In message , at 17:02:50 on Sun, 30 Jun
2019, tim... remarked: Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road is flat. what's the point? So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends you. In my case that was people crossing the road at a Pelican. It could just as likely be another vehicle. -- Roland Perry |
London pollution monitoring
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message
... Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc. Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit there in front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full brake light intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr... Strangely, with the only start-stop implementation I've driven (Alfa Romeo) the engine cut when the car was stopped with the footbrake. If you then selected neutral and applied the handbrake the engine restarted when you took your foot off the footbrake. I decided to bypass start-stop altogether on my latest car by buying a full hybrid, where the engine has stopped long before the car comes to a rest, and the car can be moved for short distances in heavy traffic without starting the engine at all. However, the parking brake on this car is electric and is quite hard to apply manually - it is applied automatically when you shift the transmission to Park. The car has a brake hold feature which leaves the footbrake applied after coming to a stop. The brake releases when you press the accelerator to move off. This works fairly well, but it doeas keep the brake lights on while you're stopped. -- DAS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk