No More Coal !
Discussion
Italy are miles ahead of us in terms of these things. Building literal green flats, covered in plants and they'll collect your recycling in the remotest parts of the Alps, where heating there is fuelled by wood. Not great for my asthma while staying in such properties while it's fine in London where diesel is supposedly killing children.
Are the Italians just more pragmatic?
Are the Italians just more pragmatic?
Edited by R Mutt on Friday 21st February 16:01
Yertis said:
StevieBee said:
All that's being said is that burning solid fuel in cities... etc
That isn't all that's being said is it though. They're claiming that burning solid fuel anywhere is bad. I'm fairly confident that no one starts wheezing when I spark up my fireplace in rural Somerset.
But from a pollution point of view, burning solid fuel is bad wherever. To use an analogy going from wet wood to dry wood or normal coal to smokeless coal is like going from smoking 20 cigarettes a day to five a day. It's still bad, just that it's less bad.
StevieBee said:
rxe said:
StevieBee said:
So when someone dies in a road traffic accident, does it say ‘car crash’ on the death certificate or something along the lines of ‘blunt force trauma’?
PM2.5 is an aggressive trigger to conditions that can lead to severe health impacts and death – respiratory conditions, heart disease, stroke, cancer and there’s emerging studies linking it to metal illness such as depression. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to this and the same that makes the link to domestic solid fuel burning.
If you’re that interested, you can have a read through this DEFRA report and follow the reference links to the research and studies.
This covers much the same but more succinctly
Centre for Cities Think Tank
Which established that:
PM2.5, is the cause of more than one in 19 deaths in the UK’s largest cities and towns.....PM2.5, in cities across the UK. This one pollutant is estimated to have caused just over 14,400 deaths of those aged 25 or older in UK cities in 2017…..and……But transport plays a smaller role in PM2.5 emissions, accounting for 12 per cent of these emissions at a national level, with similar levels in UK cities. Instead, it is domestic combustion (for example, through coal or wood fires) that is the biggest contributor. In cities, 50 per cent of PM2.5 levels can be explained by domestic wood and coal burning.
And for London
In which it is found that:
there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. This figure is based upon an amalgamation of the average loss of life of those affected, of 11.5 years.
I could post many more or you can accept that burning anything other than dry wood or smokeless coal is to be avoided.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, do please post it as I’m sure the health services in Hackney would like to know where to attribute the £30m this is costing them annually and look elsewhere to why 50 people a year are dying early and needlessly.
The same respiratory conditions that have declined massively in London, and are indeed lower per capita than in rural areas? (Go look at the BLF data, it’s pretty clear).PM2.5 is an aggressive trigger to conditions that can lead to severe health impacts and death – respiratory conditions, heart disease, stroke, cancer and there’s emerging studies linking it to metal illness such as depression. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to this and the same that makes the link to domestic solid fuel burning.
If you’re that interested, you can have a read through this DEFRA report and follow the reference links to the research and studies.
This covers much the same but more succinctly
Centre for Cities Think Tank
Which established that:
PM2.5, is the cause of more than one in 19 deaths in the UK’s largest cities and towns.....PM2.5, in cities across the UK. This one pollutant is estimated to have caused just over 14,400 deaths of those aged 25 or older in UK cities in 2017…..and……But transport plays a smaller role in PM2.5 emissions, accounting for 12 per cent of these emissions at a national level, with similar levels in UK cities. Instead, it is domestic combustion (for example, through coal or wood fires) that is the biggest contributor. In cities, 50 per cent of PM2.5 levels can be explained by domestic wood and coal burning.
And for London
In which it is found that:
there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. This figure is based upon an amalgamation of the average loss of life of those affected, of 11.5 years.
I could post many more or you can accept that burning anything other than dry wood or smokeless coal is to be avoided.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, do please post it as I’m sure the health services in Hackney would like to know where to attribute the £30m this is costing them annually and look elsewhere to why 50 people a year are dying early and needlessly.
This is all linear no threshold science, it’s rubbish when used with radiation, and its rubbish when used with pollution. But it produces big scary numbers, which is why everyone likes it.
The strategic thinking in this area is beyond parody. Indoor air is 5 to 10 times more polluted than outdoor urban air (USA EPA, UK BRE & IAQUK) and we spend 90% or more of our time indoors. This is direct empirical data from EPA and IAQUK / BRE (as was) not the epidemiological fallacy at work.
The so-called science in reports claiming 10^4 deaths annually from outdoor air pollution is a fallacy fest - Briggs shows this well.
This (link below) explains what's producing alarmist information pollution. Reducing air pollution is a good thing, but indoor air is where the focus should be given the major improvements already achieved with less polluted outdoor air alongside the fact that indoor air is far more polluted and it's what we breathe 90% of the time.
Anyone who still believes the 40,000 deaths from outdoor pollution propaganda (or whatever the latest number is) needs to read the article below. The commentary is accessible, though the letter itself requires some stats knowledge to appreciate fully. A must-read, I would suggest.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/13029/
StevieBee said:
Yertis said:
StevieBee said:
All that's being said is that burning solid fuel in cities... etc
That isn't all that's being said is it though. They're claiming that burning solid fuel anywhere is bad. I'm fairly confident that no one starts wheezing when I spark up my fireplace in rural Somerset.
But from a pollution point of view, burning solid fuel is bad wherever. To use an analogy going from wet wood to dry wood or normal coal to smokeless coal is like going from smoking 20 cigarettes a day to five a day. It's still bad, just that it's less bad.
BTW). How much will the air quality proportionately improve by my not burning coal?42 Carat Plonker said:
I'm pleased to see it's getting banned.
We live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.
The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.
You're clothes reek just walking from the car to the house...? Where the fWe live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.
The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.
k do you like, the a 1950's Hovis ad? 
poo at Paul's said:
42 Carat Plonker said:
I'm pleased to see it's getting banned.
We live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.
The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.
You're clothes reek just walking from the car to the house...? Where the fWe live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.
The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.
k do you like, the a 1950's Hovis ad? CrutyRammers said:
poo at Paul's said:
42 Carat Plonker said:
I'm pleased to see it's getting banned.
We live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.
The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.
You're clothes reek just walking from the car to the house...? Where the fWe live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.
The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.
k do you like, the a 1950's Hovis ad? StevieBee said:
Why does everyone like it?
Why have countless institutions arrived at the same conclusion if it's all rubbish? Who's paying them to fudge the figures if that's what they're doing?
I don't understand where the problem is. All that's being said is that burning solid fuel in cities contributes to pollution which has the propensity to harm health unless you use dry wood or smokeless coal. That's it. You seem to be suggesting that burning normal coal or wet wood is fine and there's no problem....bring on the smoke.
The government is banning the sale of something that you can't use anyway. There's no conspiracy. Just cleaner air. What's wrong with that?
Everyone likes it because “it kills xxxx thousand people” makes a really good headline and enables money to be spent. Unless you understand the flaws in LNT, you will continue to think that people are dying when they aren’t. Why have countless institutions arrived at the same conclusion if it's all rubbish? Who's paying them to fudge the figures if that's what they're doing?
I don't understand where the problem is. All that's being said is that burning solid fuel in cities contributes to pollution which has the propensity to harm health unless you use dry wood or smokeless coal. That's it. You seem to be suggesting that burning normal coal or wet wood is fine and there's no problem....bring on the smoke.
The government is banning the sale of something that you can't use anyway. There's no conspiracy. Just cleaner air. What's wrong with that?
The rubbish nature of your figures is shown in your answer. This ban won’t affect Hackney - you’ve been unable to burn house coal in Hackney for about 50 years. I doubt wet wood is burnt in anything other than a negligible volume. So what are all these people dying from - because they aren’t dying from stuff that is already banned?
I grew up in Brum in the late 50s and early 60s.
Everyone had coal fires.
We had smog so bad you couldn't see 20 yards ahead.
There was still lots of heavy industry.
How are my generation still here?
Edit.
...and while I'm still at it.
Why did it take 100 years to rule that asbestos causes cancer, yet only 20 minutes to unequivocally decide the domestic burning of coal and wood kills thousands every year.
Everyone had coal fires.
We had smog so bad you couldn't see 20 yards ahead.
There was still lots of heavy industry.
How are my generation still here?
Edit.
...and while I'm still at it.
Why did it take 100 years to rule that asbestos causes cancer, yet only 20 minutes to unequivocally decide the domestic burning of coal and wood kills thousands every year.
Edited by 55palfers on Friday 21st February 17:10
R Mutt said:
Italy are miles ahead of us in terms of these things. Building literal green flats, covered in plants and they'll collect your recycling in the remotest parts of the Alps, where heating there is fuelled by wood. Not great for my asthma while staying in such properties while it's fine in London where diesel is supposedly killing children.
Are the Italians just more pragmatic?
....and most of their hospitals, municipal buildings, bridges, and some houses are literally falling down. Apart from that they are miles ahead of us.Are the Italians just more pragmatic?
Edited by R Mutt on Friday 21st February 16:01
(and I'm a mad Italophile)
crankedup said:
Agammemnon said:
It does seem to be a virtue-signalling gesture rather than a meaningful way of progressing.
That is exactly what it is, just a glimpse outside of the U.K. borders reveals vast quantities of coal burnt for energy and heat. So this is to stop a tiny proportion of wet wood burners in cities?
Most already burn kiln dried or smokeless coal as that's what the local merchants will only supply. Also after spending ££££s on a burner most know how to treat it accordingly.
Most cities are already smokeless areas and have been for decades.
So what difference to saving lives will this make to city dwellers if the practical change is zero in these areas?
Most already burn kiln dried or smokeless coal as that's what the local merchants will only supply. Also after spending ££££s on a burner most know how to treat it accordingly.
Most cities are already smokeless areas and have been for decades.
So what difference to saving lives will this make to city dwellers if the practical change is zero in these areas?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff