Hardly a day goes by without a new study claiming to 'link' particulate matter (PM2.5) in outdoor air to deaths or diseases, even from short term exposure.
In short, the answer is 'Epidemiology,' which is the study of the distribution and determinants of diseases in populations. It works well when a disease has a single cause like a virus, for example, but it is unable to reliably attribute a single cause to a disease that has multiple potential causes. Air pollution studies do NOT measure the actual exposure of individuals to outside or indoor air. Indeed some studies do not even measure the level of air pollution, they model it instead. Epidemiology relies on statistics in order to try and correlate cause with effect, but one of the principle caveats of science is that 'correlation isn't necessarily causation.' Indeed, margarine consumption in Maine produces a 99% correlation with divorce, but no one believes that margarine is linked to divorce (1).
The ignored 'elephant in the room' is the fact that a smoker inhales 10,000 to 40,000 microgrammes per cubic metre of PM2.5 from a single cigarette (2) in a few minutes, which is the equivalent to the PM2.5 inhaled over 50 to 200 days by a non-smoker from outdoor air. (A microgramme is a millionth of a gramme). Smoking cessation studies show that a pack-a-day smoker who gives up after 20 years will have the same 80-year life expectancy as a non-smoker and the same risk of cardiovascular disease at the age of 55 (3), despite inhaling 2kg of PM2.5 over the 20-year period compared to 60g for the 80-year lifetime of a non-smoker. This challenges the claims of deaths from short-term exposure to PM2.5 as well as permanent damage.
ABD Environment spokesman Paul Biggs said: "The motorised transport-dependent economy is in danger of being further over-regulated and punitively taxed on the basis of soundbite headlines in the media, derived from epidemiological studies, that do not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. Politicians are only too happy to parrot pseudo-scientific soundbites as justification for CAZ and ULEZ schemes, which massively fail any genuine cost-benefit analysis, taking tens of millions of pounds out of local economies for little or no health benefits in return. Let's be clear; there is absolutely no scientific evidence linking levels of PM2.5 in outdoor air with deaths or diseases in the UK."
600,000 people die in the UK each year from all causes, which are defined on death certificates and coroners reports. No one dies from air pollution. Since 1970, emissions of PM2.5 have fallen by 79% and Nitrogen dioxide by 72% (4).
A very large peer reviewed study (2017) on California air quality and acute deaths 2000 to 2012 found no association of acute deaths with levels of PM2.5 or ozone (5)
. A 2019 peer reviewed paper exposes the bias and flaws in p-values and meta-analysis in papers linking short-term air pollution exposure to heart attacks (6).
25 peer reviewed publications 1995 to 2018 show no association between PM2.5 and mortality (7).
According to the British Heart Foundation, since 1961 the UK death rate from heart and circulatory disease has declined by more than 75%. Death rates have fallen more quickly than the actual number of deaths due to increased life expectancy.
The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP, 2018) could not unanimously link NO2 to mortality (8).
Ends
Notes for Editors
(1) Spurious correlations: Margarine linked to divorce? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142
(2) National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1986.
(3) New smoking cessation study (2018) debunks EPA's PM2.5 death claims: https://junkscience.com/2018/11/new-smoking-cessation-study-debunks-epas-pm2-5-death-claims/#more-94964
(4) Emissions of air pollutants in the UK, 1970 to 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants
(5) Air quality and acute deaths in California, 2000 - 2012: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273230017301538
(6) Evaluation of meta-analysis of air quality and heart attacks, a case study (2019): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408444.2019.1576587
(7) Negative studies on PM2.5 and mortality: https://junkscience.com/2018/06/negative-studies-and-pm2-5/
(8) COMEAP (2018): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrogen-dioxide-effects-on-mortality/associations-of-long-term-average-concentrations-of-nitrogen-dioxide-with-mortality-2018-comeap-summary
Friday, 6 December 2019
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Shropshire Speed Limit Review: Limits to be Slashed by up to 30mph
Shropshire, along with other councils,is required to 'review' its speed limits by 2011. This could in theory mean that some go up, and some come down. Unfortunately many councils, including Shropshire, have taken 'review' to mean 'lower.' Government guidance 'Circular 1/2006' contains good advice, but it is largely being ignored by the likes of Shropshire to make ridiculous speed limit cuts of up to 30mph (See also 'Warwickshire Ignores Police Objections to Speed Limit Reductions').
Shropshire's 'speed management strategy' is here:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/committee.nsf/0/E32EB43E0B72E63F80257631003095EE/$file/Speed%20Management%20Strategy.pdf
Predictably, the '1mph lie' is repeated, which claims that cutting speed limits will reduce accidents regardless of the cause. The truth about the fatal flaws in such studies can be found here and here.
Respond to the 'consultation' by 4th December:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/hwmaint.nsf/open/72B33479522CE3428025765D0036A9AD
Shropshire's 'speed management strategy' is here:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/committee.nsf/0/E32EB43E0B72E63F80257631003095EE/$file/Speed%20Management%20Strategy.pdf
Predictably, the '1mph lie' is repeated, which claims that cutting speed limits will reduce accidents regardless of the cause. The truth about the fatal flaws in such studies can be found here and here.
Respond to the 'consultation' by 4th December:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/hwmaint.nsf/open/72B33479522CE3428025765D0036A9AD
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Sentinel Comment: Do we need cameras?
The news that one of Staffordshire's oldest road speed cameras is about to be decommissioned may mean some local drivers feel they can sleep easier in their beds. The camera set up on Silverdale High Street more than 12 years ago will undoubtedly have caught out scores of motorists. The Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnership has now decided speed humps built on the same road in 2005 have slowed down cars to such an extent, a camera is no longer needed. At this point it is probably churlish to ask why a camera has been needed, for last four years, to enforce a 30mph limit on a road with traffic calming bumps? The removal of the yellow box in Silverdale is, after all, part of a county-wide review of all camera sites. However it is certainly an appropriate time to again point out that the majority of ordinary law-abiding motorists still regard speed cameras as a lucrative public income generator rather than a necessary public safety measure.
E very year, British motorists cough up £100m in speeding fines after being collared by speed cameras. A large wedge of this money is then spent on... more speed cameras. The authorities attempt to justify the cameras by quoting a variety of impossible-to-prove (or disprove), potentially-specious "facts". Only this week, the county council asserted that cameras "deliver a 63 per cent reduction in death and serious injury". No further evidence is offered to back up this very specific statement. Which is precisely the problem. For until the powers-that-be win over motorists, drivers will always believe it isn't only Silverdale High Street which should be rid of speed cameras.
The Sentinel, 16/10/09
E very year, British motorists cough up £100m in speeding fines after being collared by speed cameras. A large wedge of this money is then spent on... more speed cameras. The authorities attempt to justify the cameras by quoting a variety of impossible-to-prove (or disprove), potentially-specious "facts". Only this week, the county council asserted that cameras "deliver a 63 per cent reduction in death and serious injury". No further evidence is offered to back up this very specific statement. Which is precisely the problem. For until the powers-that-be win over motorists, drivers will always believe it isn't only Silverdale High Street which should be rid of speed cameras.
The Sentinel, 16/10/09
Staffs Speed Camera Catch Halved in Two Years
A Press Release of 26/10/09 from Staffordshire County Council below. I take what Mike Maryon says with a large pinch of salt - the halving of speeding tickets coincides with new rules preventing camera partnerships keeping the money from fines and financing yet more cameras - so the incentive to issue fines has been removed. I've previously shown that there is no correlation with speed cameras and road fatalities in Staffordshire here. I think that the figures should be 70,000 and 35,000 rather than 7,000 and 3,500.
Speed camera catch halved in two years
Staffordshire road safety chiefs have revealed that the county's speed cameras are bringing in only half as many convictions for speeding as they did a decade ago.
The stunning revelation comes as the county has bagged up a device in Silverdale - as the council commits itself to removing cameras that are obsolete.
Speed cameras are saving lives and not making money - that's the message from Staffordshire's road safety chiefs.
Over the last two years the number of tickets issued to speeding motorists from speed cameras has halved from over 7,000 to 3,500. At the same time Staffordshire has become the top road safety county.
Catching motorists is not and never has been an objective, making Staffordshire's roads safer is. Staffordshire does not financially benefit from the minority of motorists who receive a fixed penalty fine.
And the number of casualties at camera locations remains low - with an average drop of over 60% compared to the pre-camera situation.
That's why Staffordshire is officially the safest county in England - with less than half the casualties than many other comparative councils.
Statistical analysis from government shows that Staffordshire's road suffered just over three casualties per 100,000 miles, compared with just over four for Shropshire and Warwickshire, over six for Cheshire and Derbyshire, and eight for Nottinghamshire.
Staffordshire's cabinet member for highways Mike Maryon said the Staffordshire approach was paying dividends in saving lives.
"That's what the Staffordshire approach is all about. Cameras are just a small part of a much wider approach to driving home the road safety message. Campaigns, engineering solutions, education and training are all part of the mix.
"It's very pleasing that drivers appear to be getting the message. Speed cameras are working and slowing drivers down at the most dangerous locations
"When it comes to speed cameras, we only use them where there is a proven serious problem, and we will remove them if they are no longer needed.
"Those who claim they are there to make money are simply looking for an excuse for their dangerous driving. We would be delighted if no-one was caught speeding - then we could take them all out.
"But it's more deep seated than that. All the campaigning and education, training and awareness raising is getting through. We win award after award for innovation and creativity.
"Staffordshire is safer than other counties. It's official. But every death and injury is still a tragedy that could have been avoided. We have to keep on driving home the message that speeding can kill, and that drivers have a duty of care to the communities they drive through," he said.
Speed camera catch halved in two years
Staffordshire road safety chiefs have revealed that the county's speed cameras are bringing in only half as many convictions for speeding as they did a decade ago.
The stunning revelation comes as the county has bagged up a device in Silverdale - as the council commits itself to removing cameras that are obsolete.
Speed cameras are saving lives and not making money - that's the message from Staffordshire's road safety chiefs.
Over the last two years the number of tickets issued to speeding motorists from speed cameras has halved from over 7,000 to 3,500. At the same time Staffordshire has become the top road safety county.
Catching motorists is not and never has been an objective, making Staffordshire's roads safer is. Staffordshire does not financially benefit from the minority of motorists who receive a fixed penalty fine.
And the number of casualties at camera locations remains low - with an average drop of over 60% compared to the pre-camera situation.
That's why Staffordshire is officially the safest county in England - with less than half the casualties than many other comparative councils.
Statistical analysis from government shows that Staffordshire's road suffered just over three casualties per 100,000 miles, compared with just over four for Shropshire and Warwickshire, over six for Cheshire and Derbyshire, and eight for Nottinghamshire.
Staffordshire's cabinet member for highways Mike Maryon said the Staffordshire approach was paying dividends in saving lives.
"That's what the Staffordshire approach is all about. Cameras are just a small part of a much wider approach to driving home the road safety message. Campaigns, engineering solutions, education and training are all part of the mix.
"It's very pleasing that drivers appear to be getting the message. Speed cameras are working and slowing drivers down at the most dangerous locations
"When it comes to speed cameras, we only use them where there is a proven serious problem, and we will remove them if they are no longer needed.
"Those who claim they are there to make money are simply looking for an excuse for their dangerous driving. We would be delighted if no-one was caught speeding - then we could take them all out.
"But it's more deep seated than that. All the campaigning and education, training and awareness raising is getting through. We win award after award for innovation and creativity.
"Staffordshire is safer than other counties. It's official. But every death and injury is still a tragedy that could have been avoided. We have to keep on driving home the message that speeding can kill, and that drivers have a duty of care to the communities they drive through," he said.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Letter Published in Local Transport Today
Tony Armstrong of Living Streets (LTT letters, 9 Oct) is typical of campaigners who promote exaggerated claims about climate and CO2 in order to underpin their otherwise shaky agendas. Climate change is always ‘happening’ but uncertainty remains about the causes and whether or not natural variability has been exceeded.
Tony’s claim that the BBC presents climate ‘facts’ objectively is demonstrably ridiculous. Ex-newsreader Peter Sissons recently expressed concern over the BBC’s one-sided presentation of climate science enthusiastically carried out by environment correspondents such as Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. Remember Harrabin caving in to threats from ‘climate campaigner’ Jo Abbess by altering his ‘Global temperatures to decrease’ website story? It was me that exposed this affront to licence fee payers. No doubt similar dirty tricks have been tried with LTT.
Clearly, the very mention of cooling or a lack of warming sends climate alarmists into a panic. The decade of temperature stagnation since 1998 is established in the scientific literature, along with the ‘missing’ 0.2°C temperature rise that enhanced greenhouse warming should have brought us in the 21st century so far.
This lack of warming wasn’t predicted by the climate models that the climate scare is based on. The infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, deceitfully used to claim that the modern warm period is unprecedented, has been dealt a final, fatal blow by the disclosure (after nine years of asking) of the cherry-picked data used to construct it.
Furthermore, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) has ‘lost’ or destroyed the raw instrumental temperature data used by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rendering the magnitude of the temperature rise unverifiable. There is also ample evidence from peer reviewed science of a 30% to 50% warm bias in the global average near surface temperature data.
Santer et al (2008) only used data up to 1999 in order to declare that computer models of greenhouse warming are consistent with the trends in the tropical lower troposphere. But if the data up to 2008 is used, then the models are shown to be inconsistent.
Tony cites Sir Nicholas Stern’s review of climate change economics to support his case but peer reviewed criticism of Stern’s report demonstrated that the future costs of extreme weather events in developed countries were overestimated by an order of magnitude and that this overestimate was extended globally. Prominent economist Richard Tol dismissed the Stern Review as “alarmist and incompetent”. UK climate policy is described as “on course to fail” in a peer-reviewed critique.
Chinese President Hu Jintao has certainly joined other political sheep and embraced climate policy mythology. But if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonising its economy at an even lower amount, then I’ll become a member of Living Streets!
In short, current climate policy lacks a sound scientific basis and political feasibility.
Paul Biggs, Environment spokesman – Association of British Drivers, Tamworth Staffs B77
23/10/09
Tony’s claim that the BBC presents climate ‘facts’ objectively is demonstrably ridiculous. Ex-newsreader Peter Sissons recently expressed concern over the BBC’s one-sided presentation of climate science enthusiastically carried out by environment correspondents such as Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. Remember Harrabin caving in to threats from ‘climate campaigner’ Jo Abbess by altering his ‘Global temperatures to decrease’ website story? It was me that exposed this affront to licence fee payers. No doubt similar dirty tricks have been tried with LTT.
Clearly, the very mention of cooling or a lack of warming sends climate alarmists into a panic. The decade of temperature stagnation since 1998 is established in the scientific literature, along with the ‘missing’ 0.2°C temperature rise that enhanced greenhouse warming should have brought us in the 21st century so far.
This lack of warming wasn’t predicted by the climate models that the climate scare is based on. The infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, deceitfully used to claim that the modern warm period is unprecedented, has been dealt a final, fatal blow by the disclosure (after nine years of asking) of the cherry-picked data used to construct it.
Furthermore, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) has ‘lost’ or destroyed the raw instrumental temperature data used by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rendering the magnitude of the temperature rise unverifiable. There is also ample evidence from peer reviewed science of a 30% to 50% warm bias in the global average near surface temperature data.
Santer et al (2008) only used data up to 1999 in order to declare that computer models of greenhouse warming are consistent with the trends in the tropical lower troposphere. But if the data up to 2008 is used, then the models are shown to be inconsistent.
Tony cites Sir Nicholas Stern’s review of climate change economics to support his case but peer reviewed criticism of Stern’s report demonstrated that the future costs of extreme weather events in developed countries were overestimated by an order of magnitude and that this overestimate was extended globally. Prominent economist Richard Tol dismissed the Stern Review as “alarmist and incompetent”. UK climate policy is described as “on course to fail” in a peer-reviewed critique.
Chinese President Hu Jintao has certainly joined other political sheep and embraced climate policy mythology. But if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonising its economy at an even lower amount, then I’ll become a member of Living Streets!
In short, current climate policy lacks a sound scientific basis and political feasibility.
Paul Biggs, Environment spokesman – Association of British Drivers, Tamworth Staffs B77
23/10/09
Monday, 28 September 2009
Vodafone's Politically Correct Wrong Number in Eturia
HUNDREDS of call centre staff face having to walk, catch the bus or take a train to work because their new car park will not be big enough.
Vodafone's 1,200 North Staffordshire workers are preparing to move to a new multi-million pound call centre at Etruria in November.
But the office will have just 400 parking spaces, sparking fears of traffic chaos around the site.
The Sentinel: '1,200 workers and 400 parking spaces'
Vodafone's 1,200 North Staffordshire workers are preparing to move to a new multi-million pound call centre at Etruria in November.
But the office will have just 400 parking spaces, sparking fears of traffic chaos around the site.
The Sentinel: '1,200 workers and 400 parking spaces'
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Paul Biggs' letter published in The Sentinel
Sort out Stoke campaign blog
Thursday, September 24, 2009, 09:20
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Sort-Stoke-campaign-blog/article-1366256-detail/article.html
Comment on this story
The comment piece Chaos and Confusion (The Sentinel, September 21) is an excellent summary of what is wrong with Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
However, there is a consequence of the shambles that seems to be missing from the article – the fact council officers are taking advantage of the situation to pursue their own agendas, particularly where car use is concerned.
Recent letters published in The Sentinel have highlighted how traffic flow is being obstructed by anti-car policies, to the point where Stoke-on-Trent has become a place to avoid, rather than one to visit.
As Gordon Sharp pointed out (The Sentinel, September 11): "If this city is ever to succeed in attracting visitors, and possibly investors/businesses, then the council must take a long, hard look at its attitude to motorists."
Although I live outside the area, local Association of British Drivers (ABD) members have brought the current intolerable situation to my attention, which is reinforced by correspondence within pages of The Sentinel.
I have, therefore, set up the SOS – Sort Out Stoke – campaign weblog, based around The Sentinel articles and letters, where local people can comment, at
http://sortoutstoke.blogspot.com/
I hope this will help bring the good people of Stoke-on-Trent together in order to help fight for the city they deserve, rather than the "no-go" zone being inflicted on them by a useless council.
PAUL BIGGS
ABD Staffordshire co-ordinator
Tamworth
Thursday, September 24, 2009, 09:20
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/letters/Sort-Stoke-campaign-blog/article-1366256-detail/article.html
Comment on this story
The comment piece Chaos and Confusion (The Sentinel, September 21) is an excellent summary of what is wrong with Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
However, there is a consequence of the shambles that seems to be missing from the article – the fact council officers are taking advantage of the situation to pursue their own agendas, particularly where car use is concerned.
Recent letters published in The Sentinel have highlighted how traffic flow is being obstructed by anti-car policies, to the point where Stoke-on-Trent has become a place to avoid, rather than one to visit.
As Gordon Sharp pointed out (The Sentinel, September 11): "If this city is ever to succeed in attracting visitors, and possibly investors/businesses, then the council must take a long, hard look at its attitude to motorists."
Although I live outside the area, local Association of British Drivers (ABD) members have brought the current intolerable situation to my attention, which is reinforced by correspondence within pages of The Sentinel.
I have, therefore, set up the SOS – Sort Out Stoke – campaign weblog, based around The Sentinel articles and letters, where local people can comment, at
http://sortoutstoke.blogspot.com/
I hope this will help bring the good people of Stoke-on-Trent together in order to help fight for the city they deserve, rather than the "no-go" zone being inflicted on them by a useless council.
PAUL BIGGS
ABD Staffordshire co-ordinator
Tamworth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
