Pollution!

Headhuunter

I was reading this:

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... reat-28264

and although I've read most of what it says before, ie that in fact drivers are exposed to more pollution than cyclists because the ventilation intake for cars is close to the ground where pollution sits but that pollution penetrates deeper into cyclists' lungs becuase they are pulling in more air as they work out.

It's worrying to know that the invisible pollution in London's air nowadays may in fact be worse for our health than the pea soup smogs of the 1950s which led to 4,000 premature deaths through heart disease and bronchitis.

Does the affect on your health of all the nasty toxins pumped out by cars, vans. buses and lorries worry you? Have you noticed any problems that you can blame on air quality in your area?

I know that as the article points out, overall cyclists are benefitting their health but every now and then I worry about this, probably more than I actually worry about being run down by a drunk driver or something!

hatbeard

Don't worry terrorists/immigrants/hoodies/global warming will do us all in well before the pollution does, the daily mail/government says so.

bigmat

I inherited asthma from my Dad. When I first moved to London he was a bit worried because he'd had real difficulties there when he was younger due to the pollution and poor air quality. I can honestly say I have never noticed any issue with riding in London as compared to anywhere else. My not very scientific conclusion therefore is that London air is clearer now than it was in the 60s / 70s. Whether it is having less obvious effects than giving me a nasty wheezing cough I don't know, but I tend to think the health benefits are likely to outweigh those disadvantages.

notsoblue

MatHammond wrote:

I tend to think the health benefits are likely to outweigh those disadvantages.

+1

I would have thought the two main pollutants to watch out for from cars would be Carbon Monoxide affecting respiration and diesel coated particulates causing irritation. I wonder how much more susceptible cyclists are to this than anyone else though. At least we don't have the same problem with large particulates that tube users have. I wonder how pathological they are.

Headhuunter

MatHammond wrote:

I inherited asthma from my Dad. When I first moved to London he was a bit worried because he'd had real difficulties there when he was younger due to the pollution and poor air quality. I can honestly say I have never noticed any issue with riding in London as compared to anywhere else. My not very scientific conclusion therefore is that London air is clearer now than it was in the 60s / 70s. Whether it is having less obvious effects than giving me a nasty wheezing cough I don't know, but I tend to think the health benefits are likely to outweigh those disadvantages.

I suppose cars these days are probably more efficient and catalytic converters which weren't around in the 60s and 70s must filter some stuff out.

I was thinking of re routing myself onto side roads on very bright, still sunny days when ground level ozone and other pollution is at its worst. I used to go along side roads when I first started commuting, more as a refuge from traffic until I got more confident. Interesting that cycling in London hasn't made your asthma worse though. Makes me feel better!

ooermissus

Headhuunter wrote:

It's worrying to know that the invisible pollution in London's air nowadays may in fact be worse for our health than the pea soup smogs of the 1950s which led to 4,000 premature deaths through heart disease and bronchitis.

That stat is for just one incident of smog - the 4-day Great Smog - and is an estimate of people who died in the weeks that followed, not the many who died in subsequent months (twice as many some argue), or those who may have had their life shortened by this and other smogs.

I am really struggling to see how the President of the British Lung Foundation, quoted in the article, backs up his argument that London's air is 'just as dangerous' as it was in the 1950s.

Headhuunter

notsoblue wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I tend to think the health benefits are likely to outweigh those disadvantages.

+1

I would have thought the two main pollutants to watch out for from cars would be Carbon Monoxide affecting respiration and diesel coated particulates causing irritation. I wonder how much more susceptible cyclists are to this than anyone else though. At least we don't have the same problem with large particulates that tube users have. I wonder how pathological they are.

Everything I've read on this points out that overall cyclists do themselves more good than bad by cycling on busy roads but I'd prefer to reduce the bad as far as possible. Interesting to know that pollution on a side road parallel to a main road can be very significantly reduced. I suppose everyone in London breathes pollution but as cyclists we're pulling it deeper into our lungs. Having said that I was out for someone's birthday on Sat night until 4am and ended up smoking a couple of fags....

wheezee

I have asthma too, but it only developed after I came to live in Bath. I've no idea if that is significant, but the city centre is horribly traffic polluted.

Cycling up the hills here, whilst being overtaken by the buses and lorries thrashing their engines, can't really be doing me any good long term.

Headhuunter

ooermissus wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's worrying to know that the invisible pollution in London's air nowadays may in fact be worse for our health than the pea soup smogs of the 1950s which led to 4,000 premature deaths through heart disease and bronchitis.

That stat is for just one incident of smog - the 4-day Great Smog - and is an estimate of people who died in the weeks that followed, not the many who died in subsequent months (twice as many some argue), or those who may have had their life shortened by this and other smogs.

I am really struggling to see how the President of the British Lung Foundation, quoted in the article, backs up his argument that London's air is 'just as dangerous' as it was in the 1950s.

Why are you struggling to believe the President on the BLF? I've certainly heard mention from other sources that the invisible, photochemical smog is comparable to the old peas soupers in terms of its affect on health, it's just more or less invisible (unless you head to high ground overlooking London on a bright sunny day). People don't worry - out of sight out of mind!

Headhuunter

wheezee wrote:

I have asthma too, but it only developed after I came to live in Bath. I've no idea if that is significant, but the city centre is horribly traffic polluted.

Cycling up the hills here, whilst being overtaken by the buses and lorries thrashing their engines, can't really be doing me any good long term.

I certainly know people who have developed hayfever since moving to London and I find that increasingly, my eyes get itchy in tree pollen season (around May ish). I've heard this can be a result of living in polluted cities and I never had this before living in London.

lost_in_thought

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's worrying to know that the invisible pollution in London's air nowadays may in fact be worse for our health than the pea soup smogs of the 1950s which led to 4,000 premature deaths through heart disease and bronchitis.

That stat is for just one incident of smog - the 4-day Great Smog - and is an estimate of people who died in the weeks that followed, not the many who died in subsequent months (twice as many some argue), or those who may have had their life shortened by this and other smogs.

I am really struggling to see how the President of the British Lung Foundation, quoted in the article, backs up his argument that London's air is 'just as dangerous' as it was in the 1950s.

Why are you struggling to believe the President on the BLF? I've certainly heard mention from other sources that the invisible, photochemical smog is comparable to the old peas soupers in terms of its affect on health, it's just more or less invisible (unless you head to high ground overlooking London on a bright sunny day). People don't worry - out of sight out of mind!

Do you have any evidence? Sorry, that sounds a bit harsh and argumentative, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just curious.

Headhuunter

lost_in_thought wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

It's worrying to know that the invisible pollution in London's air nowadays may in fact be worse for our health than the pea soup smogs of the 1950s which led to 4,000 premature deaths through heart disease and bronchitis.

That stat is for just one incident of smog - the 4-day Great Smog - and is an estimate of people who died in the weeks that followed, not the many who died in subsequent months (twice as many some argue), or those who may have had their life shortened by this and other smogs.

I am really struggling to see how the President of the British Lung Foundation, quoted in the article, backs up his argument that London's air is 'just as dangerous' as it was in the 1950s.

Why are you struggling to believe the President on the BLF? I've certainly heard mention from other sources that the invisible, photochemical smog is comparable to the old peas soupers in terms of its affect on health, it's just more or less invisible (unless you head to high ground overlooking London on a bright sunny day). People don't worry - out of sight out of mind!

Do you have any evidence? Sorry, that sounds a bit harsh and argumentative, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just curious.

No not especially. I just wondered why he was struggling to believe a lung expert who says that pollution is as bad/damaging now as it was in the 1950s. I assume the BLF expert has evidence or has studied this. I wasn't trying to be argumentative either I was just wodnering if there was contrasting evidence that air quality now was better than back then.

rjsterry

Yes, I had a good look at the UK Air Quality Archive and the London Air Quality Network websites after reading that and (surprise, surprise) the two monitoring stations on my commute through central London both exceeded their targets last year. The state of the filters from my Respro mask after two weeks would seem to corroborate this.

In response to some of the more negative comments below the article, I would say that it's easy to be cynical when you haven't suffered any symptoms yet (speaking as someone who has suffered symptoms related to air pollution, and seen them reduced through using a mask). I think people used to say something similar - "oh, it's never done me any harm" - about smoking.

I'm sure I'm doing more good than harm, but that's no reason not to mitigate the effects of pollution where possible. That said, I know a lot of people just don't get on with face masks, and this shouldn't become another helmet/RLJ debate.

Headhuunter

I tried using those masks but in the end I just couldn't get on with them. My breathing certainly seemed to be clearer after the ride with one than without however, although I partly put that down to the fact that I was using the mask in the summer when the air is quite hot and dry and I think that just the fact that the air behind the mask is very moist probably helped a bit. I never found the filters got black though.... Certainly nothing like the photo of your filter...

ooermissus

Headhuunter wrote:

Why are you struggling to believe the President on the BLF? I've certainly heard mention from other sources that the invisible, photochemical smog is comparable to the old peas soupers in terms of its affect on health, it's just more or less invisible (unless you head to high ground overlooking London on a bright sunny day). People don't worry - out of sight out of mind!

The health impact of the Great Smog was noticed when undertakers began to run out of coffins. A few days' of pollution were enough to kill large numbers of people immediately (4000-12,000). Many more people had their lives shortened by it, and other smogs. It was on a different scale, IMO, to what we experience now in British cities.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, I had a good look at the UK Air Quality Archive and the London Air Quality Network websites after reading that and (surprise, surprise) the two monitoring stations on my commute through central London both exceeded their targets last year. The state of the filters from my Respro mask after two weeks would seem to corroborate this.

In response to some of the more negative comments below the article, I would say that it's easy to be cynical when you haven't suffered any symptoms yet (speaking as someone who has suffered symptoms related to air pollution, and seen them reduced through using a mask). I think people used to say something similar - "oh, it's never done me any harm" - about smoking.

I'm sure I'm doing more good than harm, but that's no reason not to mitigate the effects of pollution where possible. That said, I know a lot of people just don't get on with face masks, and this shouldn't become another helmet/RLJ debate.

I wonder how much good the Facemasks do though. They filter out the large particles, sure, but I don't think they do anything about the Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, etc... Plus they get saturated pretty quickly. Every little bit helps though.

davmaggs

Whilst air pollution is serious I wonder if in the effort to get heard lobby groups drift into hyperbole.

London in bygone decades had city centre factories and power stations pumping out plumes of industrial gases in vast volumes along with hundreds of trains and thousands of homes burning coal constantly. Whilst traffic may have been a lot lighter if throw in 2 star/4 star petrol nicely lubricated with lead along with no filtering system on the exhausts then you have some really nice air.

For us ley people we need the actual figures from then, and those from now of the gases/particles that cause problems to make a judgement. Press releases or media quotes are useless.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, I had a good look at the UK Air Quality Archive and the London Air Quality Network websites after reading that and (surprise, surprise) the two monitoring stations on my commute through central London both exceeded their targets last year. The state of the filters from my Respro mask after two weeks would seem to corroborate this.

In response to some of the more negative comments below the article, I would say that it's easy to be cynical when you haven't suffered any symptoms yet (speaking as someone who has suffered symptoms related to air pollution, and seen them reduced through using a mask). I think people used to say something similar - "oh, it's never done me any harm" - about smoking.

I'm sure I'm doing more good than harm, but that's no reason not to mitigate the effects of pollution where possible. That said, I know a lot of people just don't get on with face masks, and this shouldn't become another helmet/RLJ debate.

I wonder how much good the Facemasks do though. They filter out the large particles, sure, but I don't think they do anything about the Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, etc... Plus they get saturated pretty quickly. Every little bit helps though.

They are very variable in their effectiveness, but I understand that the Respro masks fitted with the Techno Gold filters are one of the best.

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, I had a good look at the UK Air Quality Archive and the London Air Quality Network websites after reading that and (surprise, surprise) the two monitoring stations on my commute through central London both exceeded their targets last year. The state of the filters from my Respro mask after two weeks would seem to corroborate this.

In response to some of the more negative comments below the article, I would say that it's easy to be cynical when you haven't suffered any symptoms yet (speaking as someone who has suffered symptoms related to air pollution, and seen them reduced through using a mask). I think people used to say something similar - "oh, it's never done me any harm" - about smoking.

I'm sure I'm doing more good than harm, but that's no reason not to mitigate the effects of pollution where possible. That said, I know a lot of people just don't get on with face masks, and this shouldn't become another helmet/RLJ debate.

I wonder how much good the Facemasks do though. They filter out the large particles, sure, but I don't think they do anything about the Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, etc... Plus they get saturated pretty quickly. Every little bit helps though.

They are very variable in their effectiveness, but I understand that the Respro masks fitted with the Techno Gold filters are one of the best.

The article says that the wrap around Bandit mas came out top in a survey
http://www.respro.com/products/sports-l ... ndit_mask/

notsoblue

Headhuunter wrote:

The article says that the wrap around Bandit mas came out top in a survey
http://www.respro.com/products/sports-l ... ndit_mask/

What were the criteria of the survey? From the description of that product it looks like its only really effective against dust?: "It should only be used to reduce discomfort caused by exposure to coarse, non-toxic particles where the concentrations do not exceed the National permissible exposure limit."

rjsterry

Whereas the Techno Gold filters filter out, "Hydrocarbons including Benzene and Pyrene, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide, Lead and Black Smoke, Sub-micron Particulates including Pollen Dust, Rape Seed Dust, Irritant Dusts [sic] and Clay Dust".

Here's a link to a report on the Health Which? test of various masks, many of which performed poorly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/109656.stm

deptfordmarmoset

I've certainly heard mention from other sources that the invisible, photochemical smog is comparable to the old peas soupers in terms of its affect on health, it's just more or less invisible (unless you head to high ground overlooking London on a bright sunny day).

I'm no expert but I remember trying to find something out about the almost complete collapse of the house sparrow population in the Thames basin. One theory that seemed worthy of consideration was that their disappearance was due to the fact that the nestlings need to be fed insects to flourish. So the disappearance of sparrows from the lower ground might be related to the rather sudden decline in the insect population hereabouts. And the reason for the decline in insect numbers? Unfortunately one of the major culprits might be lead-free petrol, which raises levels of ether in the atmosphere.

So ironically, if there's any validity to the theory, the common house sparrow which has thrived alongside humans and pigeons in sooty, lead-impregnated air, has now lost its way because humans clearing their act up has deprived them of their source of food. So we've now just got the birds that don't don't have an exclusively insectivorous phase - including pigeons, and an increasing number of tits, robins, parakeets, finches, etc.

There might also be another factor - it's said that the best ''cure'' for asthma is to grow up on a farm. Growing up amongst muck, organic matter and flies appears to greatly reduce the incidence of asthma. Sanitised lives and higher levels of photo-chemicals in the atmosphere are clearly not helping reduce asthma.

One consolation for cyclists - you're most likely to be using your lungs the most when you're cycling uphill. Luckily, the air's cleaner up there! Cyclists, head for the hills....!

Headhuunter

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I've certainly heard mention from other sources that the invisible, photochemical smog is comparable to the old peas soupers in terms of its affect on health, it's just more or less invisible (unless you head to high ground overlooking London on a bright sunny day).

I'm no expert but I remember trying to find something out about the almost complete collapse of the house sparrow population in the Thames basin. One theory that seemed worthy of consideration was that their disappearance was due to the fact that the nestlings need to be fed insects to flourish. So the disappearance of sparrows from the lower ground might be related to the rather sudden decline in the insect population hereabouts. And the reason for the decline in insect numbers? Unfortunately one of the major culprits might be lead-free petrol, which raises levels of ether in the atmosphere.

So ironically, if there's any validity to the theory, the common house sparrow which has thrived alongside humans and pigeons in sooty, lead-impregnated air, has now lost its way because humans clearing their act up has deprived them of their source of food. So we've now just got the birds that don't don't have an exclusively insectivorous phase - including pigeons, and an increasing number of tits, robins, parakeets, finches, etc.

There might also be another factor - it's said that the best ''cure'' for asthma is to grow up on a farm. Growing up amongst muck, organic matter and flies appears to greatly reduce the incidence of asthma. Sanitised lives and higher levels of photo-chemicals in the atmosphere are clearly not helping reduce asthma.

One consolation for cyclists - you're most likely to be using your lungs the most when you're cycling uphill. Luckily, the air's cleaner up there! Cyclists, head for the hills....!

Sulphur dioxide is also a very effective insecticide. I remember reading somewhere that gardeners in London parks barely ever need insecticide to prevent aphids etc because the SO2 kills them anyway.

ooermissus

Here's how lobbying works...

1. In 2008, Professor George Knox publishes publishes a peer-reviewed study that suggests, but does not prove, a link between emissions and pneumonia.

2. The science in the study may or may not be important (time, and other studies, will tell), but it's definitely complex and, for the media, boring. So George - or his PR team at the University of Birmingham - decide they need a catchy way of describing the survey (and one that doesn't have to withstand the rigours of peer review).

3. The Professor therefore adds this quote to his press release: "Total annual losses as a result of air pollution, through pneumonia, probably approach those of the 1952 London smog, which killed 4,000 people”. (In other words, as many people in England may die every year from pneumonia triggered by the long-term impact of current air pollution as were killed in a few weeks by the immediate consequences of one incident of air pollution in 1952.)

3. Jackpot! This is good enough to get George into the Daily Mail, which trumpets the new research under the following headline: Air pollution 'kills as many as the smogs of the 1950s' - reducing any nuance left in the Professor's 'apples and oranges' comparison. (Don't feel sorry for George though - he knew this was going to happen.)

4. A few years' later, a doctor and lobbyist for the British Lung Foundation, Dr John Moore-Gillon has incorporated his version of the Mail's headline into his pollution pitch, telliing Bike Radar that “In the 1950s in London we endured thick pea-soupers which would give you chronic bronchitis. Pollution in the 21st century is invisible but just as dangerous. When I see people cycling or running along the Embankment in the middle of the day, I want to tackle them and scream at them to stop.”

His words are actually quite carefully chosen. Read them closely and he's only comparing the long-term, chronic impact of 1950s pollution to today's problem. But that's not what 95+% of readers (me included) understand by his words when they quickly read the article - we are led to believe that London's air is as dangerous today as it was 50 years ago.

Again, he almost certainly knows his quote pushes the boundaries, but thinks it's worth it to alert a concerned group (cyclists) to the dangers of what is a largely invisible problem (and therefore one that is hard to get the general public worked up about).

(FWIW I think air pollution in London is a serious problem and am not trying to play it down - just that the pollution of the past was worse.)

rjsterry

On that basis, the air in my garden is at least free of SO₂

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

On that basis, the air in my garden is at least free of SO₂

Yeah, mine too, I think concentrations are only high enough in busy parts of central London

notsoblue

Well said ooermissus!

davmaggs

+1 to ooermissus

rjsterry

'Tis a tricky one though: if you publish a study suggesting that air pollution in cities is worse than people might think, in terms of the damage to health, then one of the first questions people will ask is "Really? Well how much worse? As bad as the 1950s smogs?"

The media are looking for a nice simple answer: "it's X times worse than Y" where Y is an easily recognisable known quantity, hence their fomdness for using double decker buses, football pitches and Wales as units of measurement.

wheezee

Tried cycling up my regular hill in Bath this AM just breathing through my nose, as was briefly mentioned in the article (I think).

I had to stay in a very low gear, and go very slowly, and was seriously out of breath by the end.

EKE_38BPM

I'm no expert in air pollution and the long term effects of pollution on lung function, but I can say that my hayfever is much worse in London and other big cities (e.g. New York) than on the coast (understandable seeing as at least some of the air is coming in from the sea), or in a rainforest.
I've also noticed that when I'm in the sticks, I do get hayfever, but it is generally lower level, only peaking at certain times of the day (this can change in different areas and probably has something to do with when certain plants give off pollen).

I presume that it is really particulates rather than pollen that really gets my hayfever going.