|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 28, 2024 10:52:09 GMT
ULEZ was introduced in a specific area because of the ill health pollution was causing.
Problem with elderly lefty fanastists like you is that they have no basis in reality - you seriously believe that some 10m people (population of London)are ill from pollution ? I'd hardly call every inch of the London boroughs a ''specific area'' - it's circa 150 square miles - much of which is not urban ULEZ is a moneyspinner , nothing more Exactly the huge death toll in London is due to out of control gun and knife crime, not a puff of smoke out of someones exhaust. Nearly 59,000 deaths overall in London during 2020. There were 131 murders in the same year (down to 103 in 2023)...
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 28, 2024 11:40:01 GMT
Linking to a credible debunking (comprehensive or otherwise) might help your argument....
"There was 1 death registered in London in the period 2001 to 2021 which had exposure to air pollution recorded on the death certificate". I don't dispute only "1 death" has been registered in London as due to air pollution. But the victim was young, with asthma directly aggravated/caused by pollution and no other cause applicable.
Where death is from cancer, what caused the cancer is not recorded. For example:
Throughout the first half of the 20th century the hazards of smoking had remained largely unsuspected. Around the middle of the century, however, several case-control studies of lung cancer were published in Western Europe and North America, leading to the conclusion in 1950 that smoking was “a cause, and an important cause” of the disease.
Hopefully, traffic pollution will soon be reduced to a level where it won't be a factor in the cause of death. But we do know that 52% of deaths are from cancers that can be caused by smoking, 47% of deaths for respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking, and 43% of deaths for diseases of the digestive system that can be caused by smoking, were estimated to be attributable to smoking.
Although we probably won't be 100% certain that smoking, traffic pollution, or other environmental hazards are linked to specific diseases until these hazards are reduced to negligible levels, and the incidence of these diseases follow, there seems no reason to ignore current research findings — or ignore the fact that pollution, like smoking, is unlikely to be identified as the direct cause of death...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 28, 2024 11:59:33 GMT
Yes, but that doesn't change that the whole "4000 deaths per year" nonsense was pulled out of someone's arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 28, 2024 15:11:19 GMT
"There was 1 death registered in London in the period 2001 to 2021 which had exposure to air pollution recorded on the death certificate". I don't dispute only "1 death" has been registered in London as due to air pollution. But the victim was young, with asthma directly aggravated/caused by pollution and no other cause applicable.
Where death is from cancer, what caused the cancer is not recorded. For example:
Throughout the first half of the 20th century the hazards of smoking had remained largely unsuspected. Around the middle of the century, however, several case-control studies of lung cancer were published in Western Europe and North America, leading to the conclusion in 1950 that smoking was “a cause, and an important cause” of the disease.
Hopefully, traffic pollution will soon be reduced to a level where it won't be a factor in the cause of death. But we do know that 52% of deaths are from cancers that can be caused by smoking, 47% of deaths for respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking, and 43% of deaths for diseases of the digestive system that can be caused by smoking, were estimated to be attributable to smoking.
Although we probably won't be 100% certain that smoking, traffic pollution, or other environmental hazards are linked to specific diseases until these hazards are reduced to negligible levels, and the incidence of these diseases follow, there seems no reason to ignore current research findings — or ignore the fact that pollution, like smoking, is unlikely to be identified as the direct cause of death...
Figures from the ‘dept of guesswork’ then . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 28, 2024 17:00:08 GMT
I don't dispute only "1 death" has been registered in London as due to air pollution. But the victim was young, with asthma directly aggravated/caused by pollution and no other cause applicable.
Where death is from cancer, what caused the cancer is not recorded. For example:
Throughout the first half of the 20th century the hazards of smoking had remained largely unsuspected. Around the middle of the century, however, several case-control studies of lung cancer were published in Western Europe and North America, leading to the conclusion in 1950 that smoking was “a cause, and an important cause” of the disease.
Hopefully, traffic pollution will soon be reduced to a level where it won't be a factor in the cause of death. But we do know that 52% of deaths are from cancers that can be caused by smoking, 47% of deaths for respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking, and 43% of deaths for diseases of the digestive system that can be caused by smoking, were estimated to be attributable to smoking.
Although we probably won't be 100% certain that smoking, traffic pollution, or other environmental hazards are linked to specific diseases until these hazards are reduced to negligible levels, and the incidence of these diseases follow, there seems no reason to ignore current research findings — or ignore the fact that pollution, like smoking, is unlikely to be identified as the direct cause of death...
Figures from the ‘dept of guesswork’ then . 'Guesswork' Just like yourself then. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 28, 2024 18:35:09 GMT
Figures from the ‘dept of guesswork’ then . 'Guesswork' Just like yourself then.
See2, I've warned you - continue this feud with Bentley and you're going to get banned.
Consider this your final warning.
If you are not going to contribute to a thread, and only make remarks that serve no purpose but to get a rise out of Bentley, you'll be taking a hiatus.
You chose to report him multiple times, and I'm telling you both to stop the way you speak to each other. This includes this kind of passive aggressive crap which serve no purpose but to bait someone to get a rise and a response. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 28, 2024 19:53:31 GMT
'Guesswork' Just like yourself then.
See2, I've warned you - continue this feud with Bentley and you're going to get banned.
Consider this your final warning.
If you are not going to contribute to a thread, and only make remarks that serve no purpose but to get a rise out of Bentley, you'll be taking a hiatus.
You chose to report him multiple times, and I'm telling you both to stop the way you speak to each other. This includes this kind of passive aggressive crap which serve no purpose but to bait someone to get a rise and a response.Sorry I only realised there is a posted message for me after I read your post. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 29, 2024 10:58:35 GMT
I don't dispute only "1 death" has been registered in London as due to air pollution. But the victim was young, with asthma directly aggravated/caused by pollution and no other cause applicable.
Where death is from cancer, what caused the cancer is not recorded. For example:
Throughout the first half of the 20th century the hazards of smoking had remained largely unsuspected. Around the middle of the century, however, several case-control studies of lung cancer were published in Western Europe and North America, leading to the conclusion in 1950 that smoking was “a cause, and an important cause” of the disease.
Hopefully, traffic pollution will soon be reduced to a level where it won't be a factor in the cause of death. But we do know that 52% of deaths are from cancers that can be caused by smoking, 47% of deaths for respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking, and 43% of deaths for diseases of the digestive system that can be caused by smoking, were estimated to be attributable to smoking.
Although we probably won't be 100% certain that smoking, traffic pollution, or other environmental hazards are linked to specific diseases until these hazards are reduced to negligible levels, and the incidence of these diseases follow, there seems no reason to ignore current research findings — or ignore the fact that pollution, like smoking, is unlikely to be identified as the direct cause of death...
Figures from the ‘dept of guesswork’ then . Working hypotheses from collected data are the basis for decisions and actions many fields — not least, medicine and infrastructure planning… |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 29, 2024 11:00:09 GMT
Figures from the ‘dept of guesswork’ then . Working hypotheses from collected data are the basis for decisions and actions many fields — not least, medicine and infrastructure planning… Figures from the ‘ dept of intelligent guesswork ‘ then. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 29, 2024 18:10:08 GMT
ULEZ was introduced in a specific area because of the ill health pollution was causing.
Problem with elderly lefty fanastists like you is that they have no basis in reality - you seriously believe that some 10m people (population of London)are ill from pollution ? I'd hardly call every inch of the London boroughs a ''specific area'' - it's circa 150 square miles - much of which is not urban ULEZ is a moneyspinner , nothing more Google it, I did and this is what I got -- "In fact, the greatest number of deaths related to air pollution occur in outer London areas. That's why the ULEZ operates across all London boroughs, to help give the five million Londoners in outer boroughs clearer air to breathe too." -- The problem is that Right-Wingers are pretty stupid. Its a specific area of the UK in a reply to a Rightist idiot who claims Labour would spread it across the whole of the UK. You are entitled to your opinion. Here we go again , the pretend psychologist tries out google and again doesn't understand the result( he appears to think that googling something =proper academic research) Readers will note that yet again the c&p quote is not referenced by the poster so I've found the source of his pretend research - it's a direct c&p from the Transport for London website where it is an unevidenced claim Oh , and who runs Transport for London ? That would be Sadiq Khan , the London Mayor the architect of the moneyspinning ULEZ scheme Again to misquote Mandy Rice Davies - '' He would say that , wouldn't he?'' |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 1, 2024 22:09:00 GMT
Google it, I did and this is what I got -- "In fact, the greatest number of deaths related to air pollution occur in outer London areas. That's why the ULEZ operates across all London boroughs, to help give the five million Londoners in outer boroughs clearer air to breathe too." -- The problem is that Right-Wingers are pretty stupid. Its a specific area of the UK in a reply to a Rightist idiot who claims Labour would spread it across the whole of the UK. You are entitled to your opinion. Here we go again , the pretend psychologist tries out google and again doesn't understand the result( he appears to think that googling something =proper academic research) Readers will note that yet again the c&p quote is not referenced by the poster so I've found the source of his pretend research - it's a direct c&p from the Transport for London website where it is an unevidenced claim Oh , and who runs Transport for London ? That would be Sadiq Khan , the London Mayor the architect of the moneyspinning ULEZ scheme Again to misquote Mandy Rice Davies - '' He would say that , wouldn't he?'' Yes the Mayor of London's reasons for ULEZ, and who better to get the information from? Even though you have read part of it yourself try reading all of the reasons for yourself. You might then be able to create a credible comment on ULEZ. tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/why-we-have-ulezYou spend too much time trying to think up some smart mouthing insults, but you are neither smart enough nor intelligent enough to succeed. I note that you started your post with a childish lie. So expected from a pathetic Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 2, 2024 9:58:17 GMT
Here we go again , the pretend psychologist tries out google and again doesn't understand the result( he appears to think that googling something =proper academic research) Readers will note that yet again the c&p quote is not referenced by the poster so I've found the source of his pretend research - it's a direct c&p from the Transport for London website where it is an unevidenced claim Oh , and who runs Transport for London ? That would be Sadiq Khan , the London Mayor the architect of the moneyspinning ULEZ scheme Again to misquote Mandy Rice Davies - '' He would say that , wouldn't he?'' Yes the Mayor of London's reasons for ULEZ, and who better to get the information from? Even though you have read part of it yourself try reading all of the reasons for yourself. You might then be able to create a credible comment on ULEZ. tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/why-we-have-ulezYou spend too much time trying to think up some smart mouthing insults, but you are neither smart enough nor intelligent enough to succeed. I note that you started your post with a childish lie. So expected from a pathetic Tory. You accuse everyone and everything of bias but do not seem to understand or even recognise when you are linking biased/self interested material . Just about anything written in Khan's name is biased in his favour , TFL is often picked up on it by objective sources -As you would know if you have genuinely researched the subject his 90% of vehicles are already Ulez-compliant' was thoroughly debunked (but he still insists its true) |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 2, 2024 10:08:57 GMT
Yes the Mayor of London's reasons for ULEZ, and who better to get the information from? Even though you have read part of it yourself try reading all of the reasons for yourself. You might then be able to create a credible comment on ULEZ. tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/why-we-have-ulezYou spend too much time trying to think up some smart mouthing insults, but you are neither smart enough nor intelligent enough to succeed. I note that you started your post with a childish lie. So expected from a pathetic Tory. You accuse everyone and everything of bias but do not seem to understand or even recognise when you are linking biased/self interested material . Just about anything written in Khan's name is biased in his favour , TFL is often picked up on it by objective sources -As you would know if you have genuinely researched the subject his 90% of vehicles are already Ulez-compliant' was thoroughly debunked (but he still insists its true) Are you saying that there was / is no health problems in London caused by pollution? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 2, 2024 10:16:35 GMT
You accuse everyone and everything of bias but do not seem to understand or even recognise when you are linking biased/self interested material . Just about anything written in Khan's name is biased in his favour , TFL is often picked up on it by objective sources -As you would know if you have genuinely researched the subject his 90% of vehicles are already Ulez-compliant' was thoroughly debunked (but he still insists its true) Are you saying that there was / is no health problems in London caused by pollution? A puff of exhaust fumes in London is the least of their worries, no man woman or child is safe in their own homes or walking the streets thanks to Khan who is more interested in ripping off motorists than gun/knife crime, and anyone who defends the racists track record as Mayor of London on law and order must be a criminal because they are the only ones benefiting from Khan being Mayor of London ... he gives them a FREE rein to comment crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 2, 2024 12:11:19 GMT
You accuse everyone and everything of bias but do not seem to understand or even recognise when you are linking biased/self interested material . Just about anything written in Khan's name is biased in his favour , TFL is often picked up on it by objective sources -As you would know if you have genuinely researched the subject his 90% of vehicles are already Ulez-compliant' was thoroughly debunked (but he still insists its true) Are you saying that there was / is no health problems in London caused by pollution? Someone living in the circa 150 sq miles London (much of which is not urban) is at more risk of being murdered/mugged/assaulted/at risk of street crime/being involved in drug-drink related crime/being hit by falling masonry/dying though LTN area delays/dying due to incessant protests causing delays every week than suffering a respiratory illness caused entirely by road pollution . The days of smog are long gone - cars are ever cleaner ULEZ is a money spinner , get over it |
|
