health issues of commuter cycling

rjsterry

Indeed, it is brilliant stuff.

Apart from one tiny problem.

The history of it is quite interesting - it was known to be hazardous back in the '30s I think, but kept hushed up (like tobacco) until enough people started getting properly ill. When introduced, they made pretty much anything they could think of from it. It has been used in almost any building product you can think of, including lino floor tiles, and textured paint. There is a lot of (mis)information about asbestos about ranging from 'it's fine so long as you don't sprinkle it on your cornflakes' to 'we are all going to die from exposure to even the tiniest amount' so who knows.

MonkeyMonster

All I know is my poor uncle died from asbestosis, it took em 4 days to cremate him...


*not really true

jonginge

rjsterry wrote:

Indeed, it is brilliant stuff.

Apart from one tiny problem.

The history of it is quite interesting - it was known to be hazardous back in the '30s I think, but kept hushed up (like tobacco) until enough people started getting properly ill. When introduced, they made pretty much anything they could think of from it. It has been used in almost any building product you can think of, including lino floor tiles, and textured paint. There is a lot of (mis)information about asbestos about ranging from 'it's fine so long as you don't sprinkle it on your cornflakes' to 'we are all going to die from exposure to even the tiniest amount' so who knows.

That's made me remember a science doco which showed a vast array of products based on Radium available soon after radioactivity was discovered. They even had radium in toothpaste :shock:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/of ... -used/1388

Demand soon decayed away...

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Indeed, it is brilliant stuff.

Apart from one tiny problem.

The history of it is quite interesting - it was known to be hazardous back in the '30s I think, but kept hushed up (like tobacco) until enough people started getting properly ill. When introduced, they made pretty much anything they could think of from it. It has been used in almost any building product you can think of, including lino floor tiles, and textured paint. There is a lot of (mis)information about asbestos about ranging from 'it's fine so long as you don't sprinkle it on your cornflakes' to 'we are all going to die from exposure to even the tiniest amount' so who knows.

Just as well that this place still isn't operating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armley_asbestos_disaster

I cycle past the mill responsible for this on my commute home - as the article says, children used to have snowball fights with the asbestos dust. I'd be leaving tyre tracks through it if it was still in action. Even now, 50 years after the factory closed, there are still legal cases ongoing.

mtb-idle

s'all rubbish isn't it. designed to fill newspapers or use up scientists/university budgets or meet whatever interested party that funded the research's agenda was.

If you enjoy cycle commuting carry on doing it .

MonkeyMonster

JonGinge wrote:

That's made me remember a science doco which showed a vast array of products based on Radium available soon after radioactivity was discovered. They even had radium in toothpaste :shock:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/of ... -used/1388

Demand soon decayed away...

Marie Curies original notebooks are classified radioactive waste afaik. They are kept in leadb boxes in a safe somewhere.

rjsterry

MTB-Idle wrote:

s'all rubbish isn't it. designed to fill newspapers or use up scientists/university budgets or meet whatever interested party that funded the research's agenda was.

If you enjoy cycle commuting carry on doing it .

Yes, quite right, all science is rubbish! Let's all put our fingers in our ears and pretend that we worked out how the world worked when we were still living in caves. Nobody was suggesting that you shouldn't cycle. Or even that 'cycling was bad for you' (except perhaps some lazy headline writer), just that there was one small aspect of urban cycling that might be more harmful than first thought. Is anyone actually saying that they think atmospheric pollution in central London is good for you?

[/rant]

mtb-idle

lost_in_thought

MonkeyMonster wrote:

All I know is my poor uncle died from asbestosis, it took em 4 days to cremate him...


*not really true

This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny. This is not funny.

mtb-idle

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, quite right, all science is rubbish! Let's all put our fingers in our ears and pretend that we worked out how the world worked when we were still living in caves. Nobody was suggesting that you shouldn't cycle. Or even that 'cycling was bad for you' (except perhaps some lazy headline writer), just that there was one small aspect of urban cycling that might be more harmful than first thought. Is anyone actually saying that they think atmospheric pollution in central London is good for you?

[/rant]

Watch out son, have you read that survey about how ranting on the interweb raises your blood pressure which is of course extremely dangerous for you and has actually been proved to be more harmful than inhaling CFC's whilst cycling: FACT

You are the daily mail reader on this forum and I claim my £5.

surreyxc

never mind the commute, why would anyone live in a city, bad for your health and mental state. I can only imagine the economic needy or greedy do so.

rjsterry

MTB-Idle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, quite right, all science is rubbish! Let's all put our fingers in our ears and pretend that we worked out how the world worked when we were still living in caves. Nobody was suggesting that you shouldn't cycle. Or even that 'cycling was bad for you' (except perhaps some lazy headline writer), just that there was one small aspect of urban cycling that might be more harmful than first thought. Is anyone actually saying that they think atmospheric pollution in central London is good for you?

[/rant]

Watch out son, have you read that survey about how ranting on the interweb raises your blood pressure which is of course extremely dangerous for you and has actually been proved to be more harmful than inhaling CFC's whilst cycling: FACT

You are the daily mail reader on this forum and I claim my £5.

Arf. Confirmed Guardian reader I'm afraid - have the muesli and sandals to prove it.

@SurreyXC - I guess I must be the former then. London is pretty much the only place with enough upper middle class people with a taste for modern design to support my particular niche employment.

Zombie_donkey

Everything is bad for you these H&S obsessed days.

rjsterry

MTB-Idle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, quite right, all science is rubbish! Let's all put our fingers in our ears and pretend that we worked out how the world worked when we were still living in caves. Nobody was suggesting that you shouldn't cycle. Or even that 'cycling was bad for you' (except perhaps some lazy headline writer), just that there was one small aspect of urban cycling that might be more harmful than first thought. Is anyone actually saying that they think atmospheric pollution in central London is good for you?

[/rant]

Watch out son, have you read that survey about how ranting on the interweb raises your blood pressure which is of course extremely dangerous for you and has actually been proved to be more harmful than inhaling CFC's whilst cycling: FACT

You are the daily mail reader on this forum and I claim my £5.

Bad science reporting is one of my pet hates. Actually, it's the alarmist and generally shoddy reporting of scientific studies in the mainstream media, and particularly the Daily Mail, that has led to so many people just discounting any science story they read. Rest assured that I won't be stopping cycling anytime soon, but as someone who seems to be particularly sensitive to poor air quality, the Int Panis study is of interest to me.

I'll let it go now.

always_tyred

rjsterry wrote:

Bad science reporting is one of my pet hates. Actually, it's the alarmist and generally shoddy reporting of scientific studies in the mainstream media, and particularly the Daily Mail, that has led to so many people just discounting any science story they read. Rest assured that I won't be stopping cycling anytime soon, but as someone who seems to be particularly sensitive to poor air quality, the Int Panis study is of interest to me.

I'll let it go now.

+1

Artificial life new story another good example. I work with 2 other phd's and a barrister with a chemistry degree. We all sat around after than one and struggled to figure out what the fuss was all about - "Self publicizing scientist duplicates large naturally occuring molecule and puts it in existing cell, using known techniques and a lot of manpower and money".

Oh, is that all? ITs that bloke who tried to patent the human genome again, isn't it?

In all aspects of new reporting, I am afraid that young people go into journalism to find "the truth" and within a short period of time merely seek to sell newspapers or improve ratings. Merit and accuracy of information is a mere irritating hurdle to overcome, by the narrowest margin possible, or not at all if your editor thinks you can weave a good enough reason to argue that you thought it was true.

Quite what the BBC's excuse is, I don't know.

rjsterry

Zombie_donkey wrote:

Everything is bad for you these H&S obsessed days.

Actually, I won't let that go.

Most of the things we now think are bad for us always were bad for us, we just didn't realise at the time. Like drinking contaminated water, using arsenic as a cosmetic ingredient, making water pipes out of lead, and so on.

Granted some people have turned H&S into a ridiculous box-ticking paperwork exercise (so that they can prove that they have addressed the issue) but this is mostly to avoid having to actually think about things.

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

Zombie_donkey wrote:

Everything is bad for you these H&S obsessed days.

Actually, I won't let that go.

Most of the things we now think are bad for us always were bad for us, we just didn't realise at the time. Like drinking contaminated water, using arsenic as a cosmetic ingredient, making water pipes out of lead, and so on.

Granted some people have turned H&S into a ridiculous box-ticking paperwork exercise (so that they can prove that they have addressed the issue) but this is mostly to avoid having to actually think about things.

I agree with that. There is a ridiculous attitude that pervades sometimes that if it was good enough for great grandad in the 1st world war, it's good enough for me. He smoked 90 a day and ate fried food at every meal so it must be good for you coz everything was good in the old days. It's almost as if perceived old wisdom in life always beats recent scientific discovery.

Beeblebrox

Surely, surely, this article is an argument for reducing the number of vehicles in central London? More congestion charging and cycling then!

rjsterry

Beeblebrox wrote:

Surely, surely, this article is an argument for reducing the number of vehicles in central London? More congestion charging and cycling then!

That's what I thought, but it a few people assumed it was an anti-cycling article, without reading it first.

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Surely, surely, this article is an argument for reducing the number of vehicles in central London? More congestion charging and cycling then!

That's what I thought, but it a few people assumed it was an anti-cycling article, without reading it first.

Well if we vote Bozo out and get Ken back in we may see a reduction in motor traffic in London. Bozo reduced ken's Low Emmission Zone extension plans across London, removed the extension to the congestion charge zone and removed the "Chealsea tractor" charge of £25. The supposed cycling Mayor has made it nothing but easier to drive in Central London.

Kieran_Burns

MonkeyMonster wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

That's made me remember a science doco which showed a vast array of products based on Radium available soon after radioactivity was discovered. They even had radium in toothpaste :shock:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/of ... -used/1388

Demand soon decayed away...

Marie Curies original notebooks are classified radioactive waste afaik. They are kept in leadb boxes in a safe somewhere.

Completly over-reacting if you ask me....




I would heartedly recommend reading Ben Goldacre's "Bas Science" book if you want to find yourself ranting at appalling 'scientific' journalism. I now have a habit of reading the LAST paragrpah of a story first, as the bland facts tend to be hidden there.

rjsterry

Just in case anyone was under the impression that London air really isn't as bad as all that, take a look at the spent filter from my mask.



This is after 2 weeks (10 days commuting)

amnezia

rjsterry wrote:

Just in case anyone was under the impression that London air really isn't as bad as all that, take a look at the spent filter from my mask.

This is after 2 weeks (10 days commuting)

Your lungs are perfectly capable of filtering particles large enough to be visible. Its the stuff that doesn't show up that you should be more worried about.

Headhuunter

amnezia wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Just in case anyone was under the impression that London air really isn't as bad as all that, take a look at the spent filter from my mask.

This is after 2 weeks (10 days commuting)

Your lungs are perfectly capable of filtering particles large enough to be visible. Its the stuff that doesn't show up that you should be more worried about.

I used one of those masks for a few weeks and just couldn't get used to it. I bike up and down the Old Kent Rd and it never went black like that, it just made my face snotty and sweaty and as pointed out, I am sceptical of its ability to filter out PM10 particles - these are the pollutants that diesel engines particularly push out and are a millionth of a millimetre in size. I seriously doubt that these face masks would effectively eliminate these.

rjsterry

I'm well aware that smaller particles won't be filtered out by this mask - if they can pass through the lining of your lung into your blood stream, there's not a hope of a mask stopping them. Mind you, I'd still rather some fo the crap was stuck to my mask rather than the inside of my lungs.32

I've no medical training, but I understood that it was mainly your nose that did the filtering rather than your lungs (and I tend to need to breathe through my mouth when cycling). A look at a smoker's lungs would seem to suggest that they don't so much filter as collect.

Anyway, that wasn't the point of posting the picture; it was just to show how dirty London air is, even when the weather has kept the air fairly fresh. If it doesn't have any noticeable effect on you, then consider yourself fortunate - it does on me.

shouldbeinbed

Riatsala wrote:

I have seen two articles this weekend about how it is bad for your health to commute in cities by bicycle. This apparantly is due to the higher quantity of particles you inhale. Has anyone else read this? Does anyone else have some counter arguements?

I'll take my chances and nasal filtering over:

Not doing nearly as much excercise which is improving my heart, lungs and overall physical state

Not doing something I really enjoy and which reduces my stress levels

Missing the bits of my commute through lovely green and more rural trails with much nicer air than is pushed through my car's vents and air con at me constantly.

Still eating and drinking what I like.

not needing alcohol or cigarettes or any other far worse nasties to take the edge off the day.

I have a happier and healthier life on a bike and for a 20 year manchester and surrounds bike commuter have one of the best sickness records in my entire department of 60 (58.5 drivers, me & a part time runner).

rjsterry

Ditto for our office - the regular cycle commuters take less sick days by far. Interestingly, the weekend cyclist and occasional triathlete (who commutes by train) doesn't seem to get the same health benefit; it seems it's the regularity of the exercise that's important (and perhaps the de-stressing effect).

Stevo_666

I'd like to think that on balance the benefits outweigh the downsides - it certainly feels that way for me.

On the 'filtering' point, I think (but cannot remember where I got it from) that both nose and lungs play a part. From memory the cilia in the lungs help bring the gunk up from your lungs but in the case of smokers the crap they inhale probably overwhelms the in-house cleaning system. Clearly the gaseous crap like CO and nitrous oxides won't be stopped by nasal hairs etc although presumably the bloodstream has its mechanisms for removing some of this via the kidneys etc?

Time for me to do some more research...

chuckcork

I think my cycle commute is healthy, certainly better than having an armpit in your face!

rjsterry

I don't think there is any real doubt that cycle commuting, even in the smoggiest bits of London has a net positive impact on your health, and is far better for you than cramming yourself onto a tube or train, or sitting in your car. But that's not to say that the issue of air pollution and its damaging affect on health isn't something worth trying to protect ourselves from, and perhaps more importantly, reduce at its source - in this case, knackered old diesel engines.