Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.

If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
reduction in pollution levels?

On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.

Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.

Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:

- 80% of asthma events are virus related

- indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.

- ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
> is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
> toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
> inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
>
> If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
> reduction in pollution levels?
>
> On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
> the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
>
> Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
> dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
>
> Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
>
> - 80% of asthma events are virus related
>
> - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
>
> - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
> shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
>

When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
returning home with a black coating on my clothes.

Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
>> is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
>> toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
>> inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
>>
>> If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
>> reduction in pollution levels?
>>
>> On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
>> the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
>>
>> Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
>> dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
>>
>> Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
>>
>> - 80% of asthma events are virus related
>>
>> - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
>>
>> - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
>> shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
>>
>
> When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
> vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
> returning home with a black coating on my clothes.
>
> Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
> deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
> Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
> asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.

I’d agree with you on that. I’m of an age - and it follows that my
classmates at primary and grammar school were obviously the same - where we
lived on rationed food, slept in air-raid shelters, huddled around coal
fires, smoking was rife, and we ‘enjoyed’ the London smogs (I was in
central London with my parents when the first one arrived). I knew of no
children who were asthmatic, perhaps lending support to the hypothesis that
our immune systems were ‘trained’ from a very early age, in a manner that
doesn’t happen now with the results that we can see. In my top-junior class
photo, only two children wore glasses, and we were all as thin as rakes.

The whole ULEZ thing appears to be more about social engineering than
saving lives, and it’s a disgrace.

--
Spike

On 01/06/2023 10:09 am, Brian wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
>> is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
>> toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
>> inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
>>
>> If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
>> reduction in pollution levels?
>>
>> On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
>> the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
>>
>> Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
>> dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
>>
>> Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
>>
>> - 80% of asthma events are virus related
>>
>> - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
>>
>> - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
>> shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
>>
>
> When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
> vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
> returning home with a black coating on my clothes.

In the 950s in Liverpool, winter fog was quite common - every winter,
several times. Yet by the time I was in my mid-twenties, its incidence
there was much reduced.
>
> Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
> deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
> Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
> asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.

I had a cousin with asthma (despite her living in a far-flung and leafy
suburb). She died, ostensibly from an asthma attack, at about 30 years
old. FWIW, I reckon it was hereditary from the parent who was not my
blood relative.

Like you, I didn't know anyone at school (junior or grammar) who had asthma.

On 01/06/2023 10:50 am, Spike wrote:

> Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
>>> is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
>>> toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
>>> inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
>
>>> If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
>>> reduction in pollution levels?
>
>>> On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
>>> the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
>
>>> Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
>>> dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
>
>>> Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
>>> - 80% of asthma events are virus related
>>> - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
>>> - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
>>> shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
>
>> When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
>> vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
>> returning home with a black coating on my clothes.
>
>> Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
>> deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
>> Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
>> asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.
>
> I’d agree with you on that. I’m of an age - and it follows that my
> classmates at primary and grammar school were obviously the same - where we
> lived on rationed food, slept in air-raid shelters, huddled around coal
> fires, smoking was rife, and we ‘enjoyed’ the London smogs (I was in
> central London with my parents when the first one arrived). I knew of no
> children who were asthmatic, perhaps lending support to the hypothesis that
> our immune systems were ‘trained’ from a very early age, in a manner that
> doesn’t happen now with the results that we can see. In my top-junior class
> photo, only two children wore glasses, and we were all as thin as rakes.
>
> The whole ULEZ thing appears to be more about social engineering than
> saving lives, and it’s a disgrace.

In a Geography tutorial at university (circa 1978/79), we were solemnly
advised that the early 50s London smogs had killed x people and that it
was the *sole* cause of death.

When I immediately challenged that on the basis that if smog were a sole
cause of death, it necessarily and unavoidably meant that otherwise
healthy people were killed by it and that by extension, it could have
and ought to have killed everyone in its path like a swarm of locusts,
there was an embarrassed silence, broken by a slightly sarcastic "Would
you like to come up and give the rest of the lecture?".

The whole thing is a mantra. A liturgy. A belief beyond rational
questioning.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 01/06/2023 10:50 am, Spike wrote:
>
>> Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
>>>> is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
>>>> toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
>>>> inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
>>
>>>> If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
>>>> reduction in pollution levels?
>>
>>>> On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
>>>> the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
>>
>>>> Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
>>>> dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
>>
>>>> Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
>>>> - 80% of asthma events are virus related
>>>> - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
>>>> - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
>>>> shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
>>
>>> When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
>>> vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
>>> returning home with a black coating on my clothes.
>>
>>> Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
>>> deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
>>> Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
>>> asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.
>>
>> I’d agree with you on that. I’m of an age - and it follows that my
>> classmates at primary and grammar school were obviously the same - where we
>> lived on rationed food, slept in air-raid shelters, huddled around coal
>> fires, smoking was rife, and we ‘enjoyed’ the London smogs (I was in
>> central London with my parents when the first one arrived). I knew of no
>> children who were asthmatic, perhaps lending support to the hypothesis that
>> our immune systems were ‘trained’ from a very early age, in a manner that
>> doesn’t happen now with the results that we can see. In my top-junior class
>> photo, only two children wore glasses, and we were all as thin as rakes.
>>
>> The whole ULEZ thing appears to be more about social engineering than
>> saving lives, and it’s a disgrace.
>
> In a Geography tutorial at university (circa 1978/79), we were solemnly
> advised that the early 50s London smogs had killed x people and that it
> was the *sole* cause of death.
>
> When I immediately challenged that on the basis that if smog were a sole
> cause of death, it necessarily and unavoidably meant that otherwise
> healthy people were killed by it and that by extension, it could have
> and ought to have killed everyone in its path like a swarm of locusts,
> there was an embarrassed silence, broken by a slightly sarcastic "Would
> you like to come up and give the rest of the lecture?".
>
> The whole thing is a mantra. A liturgy. A belief beyond rational
> questioning.
>

I was in Uni around the same time and attended a lecture at the IEE on
nuclear power.

The tree huggers were there, advocating fossil fuels. Paraphrasing one of
their claims, we have 300 years of coal we don’t need nuclear power.

A few years later, they turned their attention to killing off fossil fuels.

On 01/06/2023 04:10 pm, Brian wrote:
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2023 10:50 am, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
>>>>> is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
>>>>> toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
>>>>> inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
>>>
>>>>> If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
>>>>> reduction in pollution levels?
>>>
>>>>> On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
>>>>> the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
>>>
>>>>> Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
>>>>> dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
>>>
>>>>> Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
>>>>> - 80% of asthma events are virus related
>>>>> - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
>>>>> - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
>>>>> shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
>>>
>>>> When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
>>>> vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
>>>> returning home with a black coating on my clothes.
>>>
>>>> Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
>>>> deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
>>>> Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
>>>> asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.
>>>
>>> I’d agree with you on that. I’m of an age - and it follows that my
>>> classmates at primary and grammar school were obviously the same - where we
>>> lived on rationed food, slept in air-raid shelters, huddled around coal
>>> fires, smoking was rife, and we ‘enjoyed’ the London smogs (I was in
>>> central London with my parents when the first one arrived). I knew of no
>>> children who were asthmatic, perhaps lending support to the hypothesis that
>>> our immune systems were ‘trained’ from a very early age, in a manner that
>>> doesn’t happen now with the results that we can see. In my top-junior class
>>> photo, only two children wore glasses, and we were all as thin as rakes.
>>>
>>> The whole ULEZ thing appears to be more about social engineering than
>>> saving lives, and it’s a disgrace.
>>
>> In a Geography tutorial at university (circa 1978/79), we were solemnly
>> advised that the early 50s London smogs had killed x people and that it
>> was the *sole* cause of death.
>>
>> When I immediately challenged that on the basis that if smog were a sole
>> cause of death, it necessarily and unavoidably meant that otherwise
>> healthy people were killed by it and that by extension, it could have
>> and ought to have killed everyone in its path like a swarm of locusts,
>> there was an embarrassed silence, broken by a slightly sarcastic "Would
>> you like to come up and give the rest of the lecture?".
>>
>> The whole thing is a mantra. A liturgy. A belief beyond rational
>> questioning.
>>
>
> I was in Uni around the same time and attended a lecture at the IEE on
> nuclear power.
>
> The tree huggers were there, advocating fossil fuels. Paraphrasing one of
> their claims, we have 300 years of coal we don’t need nuclear power.
>
> A few years later, they turned their attention to killing off fossil fuels.

They don't have to make sense.

And they never do.

On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 10:09:20 UTC+1, Brian wrote:
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Mayor of London Khan has said said “The evidence from this landmark report
> > is clear – the ULEZ works. This is beyond dispute. It has already reduced
> > toxic air pollution by almost half in central London and by over a fifth in
> > inner London, transforming the quality of air for four million Londoners”.
> >
> > If that is so, where are the reductions in deaths from the claimed
> > reduction in pollution levels?
> >
> > On a results basis, rather than a political, financial, or emotional basis,
> > the ULEZ programme is not producing results as far as health is concerned.
> >
> > Reducing toxic pollution by a half should have been accompanied by a
> > dramatic drop in asthma cases, yet no such thing has been reported.
> >
> > Three uncomfortable facts are probably in play here:
> >
> > - 80% of asthma events are virus related
> >
> > - indoor pollution can be 8x that of outdoors.
> >
> > - ULEZ does raise a lot of cash, and it engineers social changes. What a
> > shame, therefore, that the claimed health benefits remain elusive.
> >
> When we were young, air pollution was far worse- everyone had coal fires,
> vehicles were far more polluting, ….. I recall riding my bike in a fog and
> returning home with a black coating on my clothes.
>
> Yet, asthma was rare in children. I lived an area which would be labelled
> deprived today. There was one boy with asthma in our class ( of 40) in
> Junior school. He had several health issues- including hearing problems and
> asthma. When I attended Grammar school, I don’t recall anyone in my class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE