The paper's abstract is on page 184s of http://www.ers-educa...1/files/105.pdf
So the cyclists exercised for 2.8 times as long on average as the pedestrians and had 2.3 times the black carbon in their lungs.
The paper's abstract is on page 184s of http://www.ers-educa...1/files/105.pdf
City cyclists inhale double the soot, research says - http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-15053299
...
This could be due to a number of factors including the fact that cyclists breathe more deeply
To be honest, we're all doomed anyway in London, apparently.
I can cope with the black soot, to be honest. But I got stuck behind a bin lorry for ten minutes this morning and nearly threw up.
So the Daily Mail was right – cycling is very dangerous for your health and you are much better off enclosing yourself in a box, filtering out some of the particles (but not the really small, really dangerous ones) while generating loads more particles for the “plebs” outside…![]()
My thoughts exactly. I recall reading somewhere (my apologies, don't have the reference) that sitting in a car breathing in the smaller particles is actually more deleterious to your long-term health.
IPCC science. Greenland or glaciers anyone? Grab a headline....![]()
The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: heath impact assessment study, Rojas-Rueda D, de Nazelle A, Tainio M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, BMJ 4 August 2011.
Results Compared with car users the estimated annual change in mortality of the Barcelona residents using Bicing (n=181 982) was 0.03 deaths from road traffic incidents and 0.13 deaths from air pollution. As a result of physical activity, 12.46 deaths were avoided (benefit:risk ratio 77). The annual number of deaths avoided was 12.28. As a result of journeys by Bicing, annual carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by an estimated 9 062 344 kg.
Bicing? What's that?
![]()