This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Yes good to have you back John. Only one minor quibble though, the virtual deaths you quote from diesel particulates in London is 7,000. I heard Ken Livingstone on the radio this morning, and he said the next London Mayor would have to act urgently on the 10,000 deaths a year from poor air quality. So the number has already grown. Though, hold on a minute one is diesel particulates, and one is poor air quality, so maybe there are 7,000 deaths from diesel particulates, and an extra 3,000 from other sources of poor air quality that aren't from diesel engines. Remarkable how they can be so precise.
The only thing you can be sure of is that driving in London will soon be an activity for the rich, as motoring taxes of one form or another rise.
Paris has a very aggressive form of this already coming into force where they're attacking private vehicles, something the current London Low Emission Zone hasn't done yet, preferring to punish commercial firms who have no vote. A Labour London mayor would have no such scruples.
Anytime anyone talks about deaths caused by pollution and you know its yet another propaganda piece by the activists.
If I can find the link I will post it but the government did once have proper scientific reporting where the scientists, lots of them, presented a report stripped bare of emotive terms and showing dissenting views. The report in question was about particulates. All particulates (apparently the impact of NOX on health is not as causally secure as SOX.)
The purpose of such reports was to inform decision makers not promote solutions.
No where did it mention deaths caused by particulates.
Instead it talked about the impact of particulates on life expectancy, i.e. morbidity not mortality.
NOX etc are not Cyanide. One whiff and you don't die.
The report focused on cardio-vascualr deaths from, all causes and informed that the impact of particulates (life time exposure not an occasional whiff) could only be inferred from a change in life expectancy correlated to a significant change in particulates.
Since the report claimed that no where in the UK was the particulates level above the safe threshold expect occasionally during in rush hours in some locations, we are left to wonder just how many people are really affected and to what extent.
The major changes have been:
1) the clean air act
2) the rise of gas fired central heating (which also raised the question of the impact in modern life of living in sealed environments at home, in the car and office and thus the extent to which particulates in the same concentrations have the same effect as previously).
3) the ring roads with the consequenet dispersal of industry and power generation from the inner cities to the peripheries and the marked improvement in air quality that followed.
We are left to ask how many people ar affected and to waht extent? Are they cut down in their prime at 25-30 years old or when all other forms of death have been set aside and the impact is in terms of weeks for a few people?
But as with the Marine pollution reporting claiming first 30,000 "deaths" a year and later rising to "60,000" one suspects what we are really seeing is the "activist scientist" not so concerned with scientific methods and neutral reporting but advocacy and agenda setting.
Oh, we ought to ask how many computer models where used in these reports and to what extent the limits increasingly arbitrarily imposed by politicians no longer have any beneficial effect on health buit do do what the activists want which is to destroy our society,.
It is good to see that you are back. Number Watch has been sorely missed.
Thank goodness! I had given up hoping this site was still live, ages ago. I don't contribute here - lack of expertise, I guess. But I did miss it. Live long and perspire!