is Boris Johnson on glue?

[BluesDave]

Yes perhaps it is but if you consider that in the last 50 years engines have been invented that can run on everything from alcohol to cooking oil there have been viable alternatives to petrol driven vehicles. In the 1950's the clean air act got rid of most of the pollutants. People had to give up their coal and log fires, factories had to spend millions on smoke dampeners, power stations closed etc etc.
The only way to stop or significantly reduce pollution carbon based or otherwise would be to ban petroleum based and oil based driven vehicles.
The trouble is that they make far too much money for the government in terms of tax revenues which they then give to Eu that it'll never happen.
As for thousands of people dying from traffic pollution every year I doubt that there are death certificates with that as the COD. Meanwhile governments will come up with the rhetoric about reducing pollution, catalytic converters and the like which do not remove the problem of the pollution merely create a different kind. Put quite simply they don't care it's just political rhetoric to win votes to keep them in the jobs that pay them upwards of 68k a year.
Also additives, steroids, drugs & chemicals in food have caused more deaths from cancer in the last 50 years than that anyway not to mention the current obesity problem.
Some ingredients read like an A-level chemistry text book.
So the question is do we ban petroleum based product driven vehicles and will any Gov't ever do it. The answer is quite simply "NO".

 

[dellzeqq]

So the question is do we ban petroleum based product driven vehicles and will any Gov't ever do it. The answer is quite simply "NO".

that's one question. Another question is whether Mayors, of whatever stripe, should go further and faster in reducing particle emissions in London. And to that the answer can only be 'yes'. More bus lanes, stringent standards for taxis, bringing back the WEZ, car space taxes are all do-able in the short term (and, to be fair, Johnson is moving in a small way on taxis while failing on the other three counts)

 

[jonesy]

Yes perhaps it is but if you consider that in the last 50 years engines have been invented that can run on everything from alcohol to cooking oil there have been viable alternatives to petrol driven vehicles. In the 1950's the clean air act got rid of most of the pollutants. People had to give up their coal and log fires, factories had to spend millions on smoke dampeners, power stations closed etc etc.
The only way to stop or significantly reduce pollution carbon based or otherwise would be to ban petroleum based and oil based driven vehicles.
The trouble is that they make far too much money for the government in terms of tax revenues which they then give to Eu that it'll never happen.
As for thousands of people dying from traffic pollution every year I doubt that there are death certificates with that as the COD. Meanwhile governments will come up with the rhetoric about reducing pollution, catalytic converters and the like which do not remove the problem of the pollution merely create a different kind. Put quite simply they don't care it's just political rhetoric to win votes to keep them in the jobs that pay them upwards of 68k a year.
Also additives, steroids, drugs & chemicals in food have caused more deaths from cancer in the last 50 years than that anyway not to mention the current obesity problem.
Some ingredients read like an A-level chemistry text book.
So the question is do we ban petroleum based product driven vehicles and will any Gov't ever do it. The answer is quite simply "NO".

And these also produce emissions of their own. There is a myth that biofuels don't pollute because they are 'natural'. They also have to be produced from somewhere, which means land being used that could otherwise feed people, or provide natural habitat. They also need fertilser and lots of energy to produce etc...

A source for the second claim would be helpful.

 

[BluesDave]

Well it would be nice to go back to horse and cart but

a. Horses emit methane when they fart (another greenhouse gas) everything emits something.
b. Where would someone living in London put a horse and cart (applies to other cities)

As for the other question heres the links.

http://www.healthyea...-additives.html

http://fooddemocracy...-avoid-and-why/

As for food additives I can't find the ingredients for any products of the three main supermarkets (ready meals, tinned etc) publicised anywhere. I wonder why. Neither can I find a list of the steroids, drugs, antibiotics and growth hormones they pump, cattle, sheep, chickens and pigs full of these days.
The same goes for a list of permitted pesticides and herbicides that can be used on crops and fruit in Europe. And the effects they have on the human body and the environment, waterways, oceans, fish animals etc. Again I wonder why this information is so hidden.
I respectfully suggest that either you look at the labels on things next time you shop or that someone with more experience in internet searches and time on their hands finds and posts the links on this thread.

Naturally I also fully expect someone with a vested interest to post something saying exactly the opposite as well.

After all we have not evolved in such a short time that the ingestion of so many chemicals into our bodies would not have a deleterious effect have we.

 

[jonesy]

I fail to see the relevance of horses here. The point is that burning alcohol or biodiesel as you advocated also produces NOx and PM.

The key thing missing from your list is a reference to a reputable medical study into the links between food additives and cancer.

 

[Jezston]

What kind of nutter choses to get themselves around central london by driving anyway? Public transport around London is more than adequate. Increase the congestion charge to £20 and use the money to stick security on buses to stop the antisocial teenagers and I can't see any reason to take your own car.

Then we can get rid of Addison Lee.

 

[Red Light]

Time to bite the dust: A new way to cut pollution is being tested in London
The capital is nearing the legal limit for the quantity of lung-clogging emissions in its atmosphere.

By Alice-Azania Jarvis
Friday, 28 January 2011

If you've done much running, cycling – even walking – around the capital, it is a problem with which you will be all too familiar: dust. It infuses the air like incense, leaving it hot, heavy, and uncomfortable to breathe. It comes from car emissions, tyre and brake wear, and it is one reason why London is nearing the European Union's legal limits on particulate matter (PM10).

Last November, in what was billed as a landmark pollution-reduction programme, the Mayor's office announced its intention to trial a new dust suppressant. Made from calcium magnesium acetate, it had already been trailed in Sweden, Norway, Austria, Italy and Germany. The practice sees the streets swept and washed, before a biodegradable saline solution is sprayed. The result is a surface which keeps dust stuck to it, so even once the particulate matter has been emitted, it doesn't circulate in the air. City Hall hopes that it will be successful in reducing PM10 levels by 10 to 20 per cent in the areas affected.

"Those are the sorts of results we saw on the Continent and that's the example we are following," explains a spokesman. "Our specialist vehicle has been brought in from Sweden and we fully expect it to work."

Not everyone is as confident. Professor Frank Kelly is Director of Kings College London's Environmental Research Group, and has been monitoring the progress of dust suppressant technology closely: "The European trials produced very mixed results. As a solution, it is unproven. In an experiment like this it is very important to understand all the issues. Air pollution varies day to day, so the six-month comparison period isn't really appropriate. There's been no information released on how they are going to conduct the comparison. And what benefits are produced are likely to be only temporary. You have to ask why they are doing this."

Certainly, one incentive is the likelihood of a European fine. At the moment the technique is limited to two of London's worst-affected areas: the Victoria Embankment, and the network of roads around King's Cross station. With these cleared up, London is far less likely to be penalised.

"The source of London's pollution is traffic," says Kelly. "If a long-term solution is to be found, that's what we need to look at." It is to this end that a further scheme to remove the city's oldest, most-polluting, taxis by 2012 has come into force. Similarly, London's first zero-emissions bus route should begin service later in the year, with the help of eight hydrogen-fuelled buses. For many, this is doesn't go nearly far enough; more radical action may be needed.

It's too early say what progress had been made with the calcium magnesium acetate; tests won't be conducted for a couple of months. If successful, the plans are to roll out the scheme. But with the trial costing £300,000, it won't be cheap.

​

Independent




​

CMA has been used in the US since the 70's as a much less corrosive and more vegetation and concrete friendly alternative to salt in road de-icing.

​

 

[Red Light]

Well it would be nice to go back to horse and cart but

a. Horses emit methane when they fart (another greenhouse gas) everything emits something.
b. Where would someone living in London put a horse and cart (applies to other cities)

When traffic in cities was horse based there were major pollution problems from both the horseshit on the road which was either a slurry or dried into a dust that blew everywhere as well as the problem of dead horses left to rot in the street. There used to be people employed as crossing sweepers to part the slurry to allow people to cross the road without having to wade through it. And then there were all the flies feeding off it that caused widespread "summer diarrhoea" It was very far removed from utoptia.

 

[the snail]

That's OK, you enjoy the act from the safety of distance and leave us to live with the consequences.

Don't blame us provincials, you lot voted him in

 

[Jezston]

I voted for Paddick.

Although I don't even live in London.

 

[orbiter]

Not wishing to further politicise this political post ....."

But you just did - and it wasn't political before you chipped in. It was about Boris (whoever he is).

 

[albion]

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/boris-knocks-over-young-boy-100352064.html

A reborn thread, interesting for its past comments pre VW.
Love the video of Boris on a mission.

 

[Ticktockmy]

The answer to London's pollution which is far from the devil it was back last century is simple, remove the people, its the people that live and work there that cause the pollution:-)

 

[dan_bo]

I used to think he was amusing. Now I just think he's a dangerous daffodil.

 

[albion]

Quite obviously, he has been eating too many bananas.