Forum Topic

Khan's indisputable statistics are anything but.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsinlondonasaresultofcaremissions#:~:text=There%20was%201

N V Brooks ● 1260d31 Comments

''Get out of here you vaccine denier, climate denier, Tory'' will be the little twerps reply

Peter King ● 1260d

If it was causing deaths at the lvel claimed by Khan then surely the thousands of doctors who 'list and certify' would mention the cause more than on the one certificate. The ONS collates the data, they have no opinion to state, as should be the case.

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Only 1 death certificate has air pollution as a cause of death, therefore it must be the case that air pollution does not contribute to or cause death. That’s the argument. Smoking leads to early death. As does a poor diet and being poor. When the link was made between smoking and death, did the tobacco companies argue that smoking wasn’t harmful because death certificates didn’t record smoking as a cause of death?Exactly the same argument.

Ed Saper ● 1260d

As far as I know, death certificates only show the proximate cause of death. Car emissions are a non-proximate cause.

Robert Fish ● 1260d

NV, ONS say that it “may be more informative to consider epidemiological studies which estimate numbers or proportions of deaths which can be attributed to exposure to pollution or poor air quality.”That’s exactly what TfL did in commissioning Imperial to study the effect of pollution:Dr Gary Fuller, air pollution scientist from Imperial College London’s Environmental Research Group, and UKRI Clean Air Champion said: “Scientists at Imperial College London worked alongside the Mayor’s team on the evidence base for the ULEZ design and to assess how well it is working.“The 10th anniversary of the death of Ella Kissi Debrah is a powerful reminder of the impacts of air pollution on London’s children and young people; especially those living, travelling or at school close to major roads. The central London ULEZ, and its extension to inner London, has bought about measurable and sustained improvements to air pollution from traffic.“Many people fear that traffic will simply divert around low emission zones, worsening air pollution for those that live on the boundaries. However, data from London’s air pollution measurement network has shown that this has not happened. Instead, nitrogen dioxide alongside the North and South Circular roads has shown a strong improvement.“Many cities in the UK and around the world are looking to follow London’s lead. I hope that the evidence here will improve the design of similar schemes more widely.”

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Nigel has just brought another obviously ill-considered argument doing the rounds on anti-ULEZ and anti-LTN Facebook groups onto the forum. I regularly see the same people expressing outrage at the (erroneous) claims that LTNs and cycle lanes cause more pollution from vehicle emissions making this same point about death certificates to deny that vehicle emissions are harmful to health. It's' like Schopenhauer's cycle lane which is simultaneously empty and impossible to cross without risk of serious injury or death. I do sometimes wonder if these people are even aware of how they contradict themselves.

Paul Campbell ● 1260d

Schrodinger's cycle lane even! ; )

Paul Campbell ● 1260d

Smoking and it's lung damaging effects are routinely listed as a cause. The ONS data stretches back to 2001. More than ample time for the casation to be anotated onto a death certificate.

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Hardly ill-considered. The figure cited by Khan is (at a minimum) 70,000 times that cited by the ONS (3,500 x 20).Barely credible, if credible at all that all 70,000 causations were missed by medical professionals.The ONS data did not come from an anti-ULEZ gorup (I have clearly stated before that I am wholly in favour of the most polluting vebicles being removed, not charged to use, London's roads). I do however object to inaccurate data being used to justify a bolster to flagging TfL finances in the guise of air quality improvement by a mayor who continues to approve polluting construction programmes.

N V Brooks ● 1260d

The Imperial report I read fully failed to factor in the introduction of Euro VI with commensurate PM2.5, CO and NOX reductions and the c.40% pandemic volume reduction on many trunk routes.Incredibly easy to prove that roads with vastly reduced traffic have lower pollution levels. Did someone actually pay for the patently obvious to be stated?

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Paul, what is also apparent is that Nigel didn’t read the FOI response which directly contradicted his implication that Khan’s statistics (from Imperial) were disputed by ONS.

Tom Pike ● 1260d

No, Nigel,  you just read an old report. You should read this, which clearly takes account of both improvements due to emissions standards and the pandemic:https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report?auHash=IxeIM3L6iJh-CwYvb2wek2UKMCSJvpOqMgtpRAMt5B8

Tom Pike ● 1260d

ONS do not directly give a figure in their response, but do cite work that estimates for the UK as whole pollution is responsible for 28,000 to 36,000  deaths a year. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollutionThat is consistent with Imperial’s estimate of 4,000 deaths a year in London, of which around 24 would be W4.

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Thank you Tom.My view however is not swayed as it alludes to traffic evaporation which simply did not/ has not happened. REMOVING not taxing the most polluting vehicles (based on actual pollution levels rather than an arbitrary cut-off date) is the way ahead, Simply imposing an 'entry fee' is both cynical and ineffective.  Volume reduction is the main cause of CO2/pollutio reduction that this has been achieved by taxation is coincidental. The 'heavy fleet' \(Class 2 &3, buses etc.) has to go somewhere until it is replaced.

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Of which, how many are attributable to pollution from motor vehicles?

N V Brooks ● 1260d

The inner London ULEZ has been extremely effective in reducing the volume of non-compliant vehicles by over two thirds. The charge has already proven to be an effective deterrent to people using the most polluting private motor vehicles in the zone.

Paul Campbell ● 1260d

Nigel, the report makes no assumption about traffic evaporation - I don't know where you got that from! It's based on the actual vehicle counts at the ULEZ boundary and the pollution counts at monitoring sites across London.The report directly states that the ULEZ and LEZ have been effective:"The findings indicate that the Mayor’s air quality policies, and in particular the ULEZ and LEZ schemes, are having a significant impact reducing the number of older, more polluting vehicles seen driving in London and on reducing the levels of harmful air pollution that Londoners are exposed to."In particular the report contrast the outcomes with and without ULEZ, based on the changes seen in the outer London pollution counts which were outside the ULEZ zone. This will compensate somewhat for overall changes in the mix of vehicles, but it's worth reading the caveat in the report: "In practice this method may underestimate the ULEZ impact as many vehicles in outer London will have been upgraded by owners who drive frequently into the zone."Their analysis gives a 46% decrease in roadside NO2 from ULEZ in central London, and a 21% decrease in inner London, which includes Chiswick.Of course you can ignore the findings, but not on the basis that they've overlooked any of the points you have made so far.

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Yes Paul but it can only be an interim measure when the only thing to remove the pollution from the most polluting (again, I stress based on actual not hypothesised levels) is the rmove the most polluting vehicles. It cannot be right that a relatively clean Diesel is charged while 'luxury' cars emitting 300g/km are free.  OK, they pay extra VED but this does nothing to improve air quality in the short term.

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Road vehicles are the largest source, responsible for nearly half of the pollution in London.

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Both reports clearly disregard the move to Euro VI as a major factor in pollution reduction and any clear reference to volume reductions outwith ULEZ chrging (as one would expect given who commissioned and paid for the reports).

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Nigel, you’re mixing emissions with pollution. Both should be reduced but ULEZ specifically targets pollution. But you have a valid point and I would support introducing emissions limits as well, not ignoring pollution.

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Once the infrastructure is in place there is no reason why it cannot be used to tackle both pollution and emissions in the future.

Paul Campbell ● 1260d

No they don’t.  They compare pollution levels outside ULEZ to those inside so the fall due to Euro IV is captured in the fall of outer London pollution.

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Then the fall would be comparative across both zones wouldn't it? Or do Euro VI vehicles evaporate upon ULEZ entry? The report lacks clarity

N V Brooks ● 1260d

Nigel, yes, that's the point! The fall in pollution inside ULEZ is larger than that seen outside so that reduction can't just be explained by the overall change in the mix of vehicles due to regulatory compliance, or indeed atmospheric conditions or overall shifts in travel due to COVID.I don't see how the report could be any clearer on that point!

Tom Pike ● 1260d

Of course the fall inside is larger as volumes dropped off a cliff. The report lacks clarity but perhaps obfuscation is what was requested by those funding it.

N V Brooks ● 1260d

I'm missing something. It's pollution that has fallen inside the ULEZ zone more than it has fallen outside the zone - is that correct?

Andrew Jones ● 1259d

Are you suggesting that the non EURO6 compliant cars don't generate more pollution e.g. NO2 than EURO6 compliant cars.

Andrew Jones ● 1259d

Not at all. The mayor selected a Euro VI 1cut off point without any consideration of actual emissions from vehicles which may either be otherwise conformant tor which grossly exceed emissions norms but which are not charged due to their age.

N V Brooks ● 1259d

When you go through the reports and its notes, the position is potentially nowhere near as alarmist as the Mayor paints.Rather than saving over 4000 lives the report states ULEZ has saved 3600-4100 lives (so the median number would be 3850) if you accept the assumption that very low levels of pollution still have serious life threatening health effects.  If you do not accept that assumption then the death figure would be 2200-2600 (so a median figure of 2400) or roughly 40% lower than the Mayor's position.To be clear, even on the lower estimate I still support ULEZ but more to reduce fossil fuel usage than for lowering emissions

Justin Stephenson ● 1259d

Did anyone see TALK TV where a man went out with an air quality detector. Many roads gave a favourable readings. However when on the underground it was terrible. Red turning purple on the indicator. Cars are being demonised, and we are told to use the underground. Why no action against the underground?

Nicholas Beard ● 1187d