Diesel users to pay £20 to enter London
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Fastdruid said:
More what are you on about? What relevance is lead to current vehicles?
Lead started being phased out 40 years ago in the US, was banned totally in 1996 and was banned totally in the EU in 2000 (UK in 1999) that's 15 years ago that it was banned (at which point the amount of leaded sales was something like 0.6%).
Still using benzene though, which unlike diesel has always known to be highly carcinogenic. We release it to atmosphere and breathe it in every time we fuel our cars and t is a cause of leukaemia. Lead started being phased out 40 years ago in the US, was banned totally in 1996 and was banned totally in the EU in 2000 (UK in 1999) that's 15 years ago that it was banned (at which point the amount of leaded sales was something like 0.6%).
Just curious as to why we wouldn't compare that to asbestos.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/a...
Cancer Research UK said:
Exposure to benzene
Exposure to the chemical benzene at work over a long time increases the risk of developing acute leukaemia. There is benzene in traffic pollution but the levels are likely to be too low to increase leukaemia risk. There is also benzene in cigarette smoke (see below).
Exposure to the chemical benzene at work over a long time increases the risk of developing acute leukaemia. There is benzene in traffic pollution but the levels are likely to be too low to increase leukaemia risk. There is also benzene in cigarette smoke (see below).
TroubledSoul said:
CampDavid said:
Personally I'd like to see the pedestrianization of large sections of the City with lots of new, safe, cycle ways and a blanket 20 limit.
I'd also like to see black cabs being replaced my all electric within 6 years and buses to go the same way.
I'd also like an app on my phone that showed me where all the buses are, how full they are and plotted my routes to use them better.
While I'm on my soap box, lets modernise the underground and get it working for London, not the unions and get some AC in there and clean it up.
Driving in London is miserable, getting around on public transport need not be.
That all sounds rather like a manifesto.... I'd also like to see black cabs being replaced my all electric within 6 years and buses to go the same way.
I'd also like an app on my phone that showed me where all the buses are, how full they are and plotted my routes to use them better.
While I'm on my soap box, lets modernise the underground and get it working for London, not the unions and get some AC in there and clean it up.
Driving in London is miserable, getting around on public transport need not be.
It would actually be difficult but nit impossible to do.
First, sort out the buses and introduce new buses and new routes with a delay in phasing the current ones out.
Next, start modernising the underground. The strikes called will be horrendous, however, if the bus system is in place, traffic is restricted and people can actually cycle, losing the underground for a few weeks won't hurt. introduce driverless trains on the Victoria line, modernise all others and fit safety screens all round, as on the Jubilee.
I think it could work.
It's not diesel, per se, that's the problem. It's the NOx emissions of the modern diesel that's the pollution problem.
I'm sure I read something recently from the EU stating that real world NOx emissions from diesels are worse than they were 20yrs ago, as manufacturers have sought to exploit the emissions related taxation benefits of diesel that exists in many EU countries.
I'm sure I read something recently from the EU stating that real world NOx emissions from diesels are worse than they were 20yrs ago, as manufacturers have sought to exploit the emissions related taxation benefits of diesel that exists in many EU countries.
not sure if its been asked already but what % of the money charged will go into anything to help improve the situation ?
what about all the buses driving around all day with only a scattering of people in them?
If its genuinely an attempt at improving the quality of air why not just ban all non essential traffic (petrol or diesel) during peak hours? you should have to apply for a licence to drive in the centre of london and you need to provide proof that you have a commercial reason to be using a car/van/lorry.
could be enforced quite easy with existing ANPR - fined £60 for entering the pollution zone without a valid licence
what about all the buses driving around all day with only a scattering of people in them?
If its genuinely an attempt at improving the quality of air why not just ban all non essential traffic (petrol or diesel) during peak hours? you should have to apply for a licence to drive in the centre of london and you need to provide proof that you have a commercial reason to be using a car/van/lorry.
could be enforced quite easy with existing ANPR - fined £60 for entering the pollution zone without a valid licence
Fastdruid said:
Superhoop said:
Fastdruid said:
Good luck for diesels come Euro 6 though. That's going to be very complicated and expensive to get them to pass.
Not for all manufacturers it isn't - Mazda's SkyActiv diesel can run at Euro6 without the need for any after treatment for NOX, as the low compression ratio leads to a very low NOX output anyway.
Mazda are laughing right now as they're ahead of the curve but I doubt many of the other makes are, they're either going to have to design something like the SkyActiv-D or add extra (expensive and potentially unreliable) gubbins to their Diesels to pass. I suspect a number would buy engines from Mazda but that leaves the makers of the larger engined Diesels out in the cold.
Fastdruid said:
I'm not sure that the NOx of modern diesels are worse, just that they haven't reduced in the real world.
Petrol NOx has been massively slashed in the last ~20 years, diesel NOx is the same as it was ~20 years ago but there are many many more Diesels on the road.
I think you're right actually.Petrol NOx has been massively slashed in the last ~20 years, diesel NOx is the same as it was ~20 years ago but there are many many more Diesels on the road.
http://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/laboratory-vers...
On-road diesel NOx has dropped a touch but nothing like as much as petrol, and significantly exceeds the test requirements.
I can see a post-election change to the VED coming.
Also interesting that Euro VI doesn't look like it'll solve the issue. If they do start including real-world testing into type aproval we might see some histrionics from the manufacturers!
worsy said:
Fastdruid said:
Superhoop said:
Fastdruid said:
Good luck for diesels come Euro 6 though. That's going to be very complicated and expensive to get them to pass.
Not for all manufacturers it isn't - Mazda's SkyActiv diesel can run at Euro6 without the need for any after treatment for NOX, as the low compression ratio leads to a very low NOX output anyway.Mazda are laughing right now as they're ahead of the curve but I doubt many of the other makes are, they're either going to have to design something like the SkyActiv-D or add extra (expensive and potentially unreliable) gubbins to their Diesels to pass. I suspect a number would buy engines from Mazda but that leaves the makers of the larger engined Diesels out in the cold.
Regardless of what car / engine I am in I tend to avoid places that charge people for driving in there.
or charge ridiculously high parking charges for stopping in them.
Probably doesn't make any difference either way, but I kind of hope places that charge people to drive and park there suffer a reduction of trade, which (as has happened here in `some' cases)and subsequently cause the local authorities to change their mind, and either reduce or remove charges (usually following a lot of noise from local traders regarding loss of trade / footfall into their premises)
Not sure why anyone would want to drive into London, or even go there in the first place these days, but if enough drivers boycotted places which charge them to go there, it might have `some' effect on their driving / parking policies. Just a thought.
or charge ridiculously high parking charges for stopping in them.
Probably doesn't make any difference either way, but I kind of hope places that charge people to drive and park there suffer a reduction of trade, which (as has happened here in `some' cases)and subsequently cause the local authorities to change their mind, and either reduce or remove charges (usually following a lot of noise from local traders regarding loss of trade / footfall into their premises)
Not sure why anyone would want to drive into London, or even go there in the first place these days, but if enough drivers boycotted places which charge them to go there, it might have `some' effect on their driving / parking policies. Just a thought.
Since the ULEZ was first hinted at, I've been (entirely unscientifically) looking at what actually pumps out clouds of crap in town. With the exception of the odd knackered tradesman's van and private hire Zafira, all the offenders are black cabs and buses. Just looking at the filth on the floor at station cab ranks and bus stops tells you something - I saw some bloke on a bike entirely consumed in a cloud of soot from a filthy 04-registered double-decker on Queenstown Road a couple of weeks ago.
Well i must say PH is taking this very well, (maybe because it's announced by a tory mayor), there is a flaw though.
As this will affect older cars, you will be penalising people with less money to spend on their transportation, unlike the cap on the VED.
Going to kill residuals for old diesels in the south east too i guess.
As this will affect older cars, you will be penalising people with less money to spend on their transportation, unlike the cap on the VED.
Going to kill residuals for old diesels in the south east too i guess.
Fastdruid said:
heebeegeetee said:
Fastdruid said:
More what are you on about? What relevance is lead to current vehicles?
Lead started being phased out 40 years ago in the US, was banned totally in 1996 and was banned totally in the EU in 2000 (UK in 1999) that's 15 years ago that it was banned (at which point the amount of leaded sales was something like 0.6%).
Still using benzene though, which unlike diesel has always known to be highly carcinogenic. We release it to atmosphere and breathe it in every time we fuel our cars and t is a cause of leukaemia. Lead started being phased out 40 years ago in the US, was banned totally in 1996 and was banned totally in the EU in 2000 (UK in 1999) that's 15 years ago that it was banned (at which point the amount of leaded sales was something like 0.6%).
Just curious as to why we wouldn't compare that to asbestos.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/a...
>>Benzene increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses. Benzene is a notorious cause of bone marrow failure. Substantial quantities of epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data link benzene to aplastic anemia, acute leukemia, and bone marrow abnormalities.[51][52] The specific hematologic malignancies that benzene is associated with include: acute myeloid leukemia (AML), aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).[53]
The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated in 1948 that "it is generally considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero."[54] The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) classifies benzene as a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to excessive levels of benzene in the air causes leukemia, a potentially fatal cancer of the blood-forming organs, in susceptible individuals. In particular, Acute myeloid leukemia or acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (AML & ANLL) is not disputed to be caused by benzene.[55] IARC rated benzene as "known to be carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1).
Human exposure to benzene is a global health problem etc etc<<
I can always smell petrol when I'm at a filling station, and as a person who likes to brim the tank I normally always see the fuel whenever I'm filling up. I imagine there can be health issues for those living near filling stations.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/11020...
I just find it curious that we can be so 'forgiving' (for want of a better word) to a fuel that has never worked in the motor car unless it's had chemicals known to harm human health added to it, and why we're so bothered about the carcinogenicity of a fuel that couldn't be proven to be carcinogenic until about 2012.
Re the current issues of air quality - I'm a tad puzzled 'cos this issue of Nox does seem to be a fairly recent occurrence, but also because the UK has never bought into diesels to the degree that Europe has imo, especially countries like Belgium where it seems just about every car is a diesel.
Historically speaking I'm sure we've never bought diesel cars at the same rate as Europe, but we still seem to have worse air quality.
Maybe it's our 24/7 shopping habits, also not seen anywhere else in Europe, that must put a greater number of hgvs on the road?
I can barely think of s single good reason for going into London, by car, bus, train, plane etc.
The only good journey I have had into London was flying a helicopter into Battersea heliport, but once the there, it was just the same sh*thole I always remembered it as being.
The only good thing about the whole trip was be able to fly out of there again.
The only good journey I have had into London was flying a helicopter into Battersea heliport, but once the there, it was just the same sh*thole I always remembered it as being.
The only good thing about the whole trip was be able to fly out of there again.
heebeegeetee said:
That surprises me. Wikipedia says:
>>Benzene increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses. Benzene is a notorious cause of bone marrow failure. Substantial quantities of epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data link benzene to aplastic anemia, acute leukemia, and bone marrow abnormalities.[51][52] The specific hematologic malignancies that benzene is associated with include: acute myeloid leukemia (AML), aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).[53]
The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated in 1948 that "it is generally considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero."[54] The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) classifies benzene as a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to excessive levels of benzene in the air causes leukemia, a potentially fatal cancer of the blood-forming organs, in susceptible individuals. In particular, Acute myeloid leukemia or acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (AML & ANLL) is not disputed to be caused by benzene.[55] IARC rated benzene as "known to be carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1).
Citing a study from 1948 in support! >>Benzene increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses. Benzene is a notorious cause of bone marrow failure. Substantial quantities of epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data link benzene to aplastic anemia, acute leukemia, and bone marrow abnormalities.[51][52] The specific hematologic malignancies that benzene is associated with include: acute myeloid leukemia (AML), aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).[53]
The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated in 1948 that "it is generally considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero."[54] The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) classifies benzene as a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to excessive levels of benzene in the air causes leukemia, a potentially fatal cancer of the blood-forming organs, in susceptible individuals. In particular, Acute myeloid leukemia or acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (AML & ANLL) is not disputed to be caused by benzene.[55] IARC rated benzene as "known to be carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1).
I'd rather something more reliable than wikipedia hence Cancer research and oooh look, the US CDC and EPA
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.a...
All state "long term" and "excessive levels".
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
EPA said:
The reference concentration for benzene is 0.03 mg/m3 based on hematological effects in humans. The RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive groups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk deleterious noncancer effects over a lifetime.
andEPA said:
At present, the true cancer risk from exposure to benzene cannot be ascertained
From http://www.ukpia.com/files/pdf/ukpia-benzene-in-pe... the limit 9 years ago was 5ppb which is 0.02 mg/m3 but already 10 years ago at most sites was 1ppb or 0.003 mg/m3. Now the limit is 1.5ppb or 0.005mg/m3Actual recent figures suggest 0.72ug/m3 or 0.00072mg/m3 actual measurements (from 2013 at Birmingham Airport) http://www.birminghamairport.co.uk/~/media/Communi...
So if the limit is only just hit then from the figures at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm there is an estimated additional 1 person in every 100000 that may get cancer. Except the real measured figures are far lower so an additional 1 person in every million that may get cancer. 63 people.
So in the UK that is between 63 and 623 people who *may* get cancer (and who may also recover) from Benzene against the 50k people dying per year from NOx.... Which one is worse again?
Fastdruid said:
1. Citing a study from 1948 in support!
2. So in the UK that is between 63 and 623 people who *may* get cancer (and who may also recover) from Benzene against the 50k people dying per year from NOx.... Which one is worse again?
1. In support of what? 2. So in the UK that is between 63 and 623 people who *may* get cancer (and who may also recover) from Benzene against the 50k people dying per year from NOx.... Which one is worse again?
But, aren't you missing the point? The dangers of benzene was known at the beginning of the last century, same with tetra-ehyl lead. Point is, the dangers of these substances was well known even that far back.
In the 1990's the WHO was saying that benzene has no known safe level of use, so I was a bit surprised to see that the Americans were saying the same 50 years previously.
The quantities of benzene in use will be tiny. Again in the 1990's the WHO was recommending a level of 5 parts per million but several hundred times that amount was being added. Not sure if that would be deemed 'excessive' or not.
2. I've known lots of people who have had cancer, been to plenty of funerals. I've never known anyone who died of Nox, despite there being 50k per annum as you say.
Every now and again these stories get trotted out - I remember the headlines back in the 1990's that said diesel kills 100k per year. At that rate, how is it possible that I've never met anyone struck down by air quality?
Anyway, my comments weren't aimed at the Nox issue. They were aimed specifically at comments about carcinogenicity. I'm simply saying I'm surprised that people are so worried about something being so carcinogenic that it took 100 years to discover that it was in fact carcinogenic, but are happy to use a fuel that has a long history of being injurious to health.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff