Ok then just Google it, you will then find the evidence you want, I posted my own experience to emphasize the studies, because as you can see above people like Geof hate the studies which show Londons LEZ actually works.
So where's the monitor for ultra fine particulates? You know, the ones produced by ICE which have no specs.That's just your anecdotal impression. The fact is that pollution in London is now low and hence pollution is not a valid reason to expand the ULEZ. Two sources that provide actual measurements (as opposed to the modelling that TfL etc. seem to rely on):
Air quality in England
Air Quality in England provides information on air quality, latest monitoring data from region's monitoring sites, news, air quality reports and other air quality issues.www.airqualityengland.co.uk
Air Quality London: Live air quality and pollution Forecasts
Real-time levels and forecasts of Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM10), Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in London. The air quality report by Plume Labs.air.plumelabs.com
Oh it works we haven’t visited London since it was it was introduced
You mean PM2.5, as that's particles 2.5 micron and smaller. You only need follow your own suggestion and 'Google' it. Check the links I posted upthread, both have this data. For example, from the first link, here's the latest for Hackney Old Street -- chosen just because it's in the centre of the city:
No I said ultra fine particulates, you know, those ones the manufacturers don't like to mention, and the ones they can't do anything about, the ones that go straight through your lungs and enter every other organ in the body.
You're going to have to give me a reference (and preferably a link) to formal studies where "ultra fine particles" are not covered by PM2.5. By definition, PM2.5 includes all particles from molecular size up to 2.5 microns and so must include "ultra fine particles" unless sub-molecular. That said, I suspect that this is the same pollution that EVs produce more of than modern ICEs...
Nope EV's don't emit PM1 or at least very little, it's mainly from combustion ICE being a prime source, standard monitoring that you have linked to doesn't cover it. Maybe you need to do some research, the info out there and not difficult to find, unless you don't want to find it.
Thanks for the pointer. Searching for PM1 produces stuff from the US that notes PM1 is anything with an aerodynamic size of 1 micron or smaller and includes dust, combustion products, bacteria and viruses. EVs produce this in the form of dust from road, tyre and (to a lesser extent) brake wear. Also, each category includes categories smaller. So PM10 includes PM2.5, which includes PM1. So, according to my research, neither the WHO nor the EU specifically monitor PM1. However, they implicitly do because the monitoring stations monitor PM2.5, which includes PM1.
Honestly don't think you are actually reading my posts !
Eliminating/reducing air pollution is not necessarily a good thing if the costs outweigh the benefits. In extremis, there would be a total ban on all vehicles, a total ban on all forms of heating and a total ban on all forms of energy use (e.g. appliances like cookers and refrigerators) likely to cause the slightest particulate emissions. While that would certainly reduce air pollution, people would die in their thousands from cold and starvation. Urban pollution is pretty much inevitable. The 'trick' is to create the minimum pollution commensurate with allowing people to get on with their lives. YMMV, but IMO road traffic pollution has already reduced to this level and further reduction must be to the detriment of those who live and work in the areas affected. For info, according to the Air Quality England website, currently (07:15 4th June 2023) every monitoring station in England that is not offline is reporting low pollution.
www.nature.com
From your first link:Most monitoring stations aren't able to accurately detect PM1, and no vehicle Euro level include any measures to reduce them, that is because they have so far been unable to be reduced.
IQAir | First in Air Quality
Explore air quality in your city and around the world. Air quality data, collaboration tools, and technology solutions – powered by IQAir.www.iqair.com
Ultrafine particles: unique physicochemical properties relevant to health and disease - Experimental & Molecular Medicine
Ultrafine particles (UFPs) from auto exhaust, factory emissions, and woodburning negatively affect human health and can alter weather patterns. UFPs, particles less than 100 nanometers, smaller than the smallest bacterium, are the most common airborne particles. Their size allows them to...
It does not surprise me at all that the London underground has high levels of PM1, but I note that the second link shows diesels as having high levels of PM1's. I'm certainly not blaming everything on vehicles, but they are relatively easy to 'clean up' in congested urban areas, which leads us straight back to LEZ's etc.From your first link:
Some sources of PM1 are naturally occurring, such as mineral fragments and aerosols from sea spray.1 But by far, the majority of airborne PM1 originates from human activity, such as:
- emissions from factories and other industrial activity
- vehicle exhaust
- tire particles from vehicle use
- smoke from wildfires or indoor wood-burning
Because human activity makes up the bulk of PM1 sources, densely populated urban areas, especially those with busy roadways or industrial facilities, are especially prone to PM1 pollution as well as other types of particle pollution.
Note that vehicle exhaust is only one of many sources of PM1 and that it's disingenuous to blame it all on vehicle exhausts. FWIW, the highest PM1 pollution in London is actually found in the Underground, not on the roads, and the highest PM2.5 (according to your link, an estimated 75% of which is PM1) at the surface in London seems to be recorded near where the Underground runs on the surface.
... and now we're going around in circles. The evidence provided by monitoring stations shows that, throughout England, pollution levels are low and have been low for over a year and thus the latest clutch of CAZs and proposed expansion of the ULEZ are not required. They are hence a de facto tax on the poor and to the detriment of that portion of society who can least afford it.
And from Bristol and extract which says the burning of fuels is having adverse affects on health.
p.s. what do you think the typo is?
