One thing that I have a bitter chuckle about when the media are going on
about the 1952 smog, is that no-one seesm to recall the far more recent
nitrogen dioxide smogs in London (and other major cities of course) which
continue, but whose highest recorded death toll was 160 people in a single
day (Friday 13th December 1991). What is particularly sinister about this is
that the government only formerly admitted this death toll in mid-1994...
Estimates of premature death due to urban air pollution in the UK range
between 12,000 - 24,000. But of course you can't see NO2 so everything looks
fine and dandy...
David.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hillary Shaw [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 18:30
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The politics of air pollution
>
>
> It is now 50 years since the Great Smog in London; then as
> now pollution
> deaths are climbing, now it is not coal fires but traffic,
> especially slow
> cars caught in jams. Obvious conclusion, car drivers are to
> blame for deaths
> now, just as the Smog killed so many then, so place further
> curbs on car
> drivers. Well not quite. The Smog had a political element,
> the UK economy was
> on its uppers after WW2, partly because the USA had lent, not
> given us aid in
> that war, and it was now payback time. So the best quality UK
> coal was going
> abroad, and UK householders got all the cheap sulphury stuff.
> In effect some
> of the last casualties of WW2 were in the early 1950s and
> caused by our ally
> the USA, not Germany. Blaming the householders for the Smog,
> although they
> were causing it, would not really have made sense, as there was no
> alternative means of heating their houses. No coal, more
> would have died of
> hypothermia.
>
> Now why do so many insist on driving in London? It's not
> exactly car drivers
> paradise there what with road works, average speed under
> 10mph (under walking
> pace for many roads much of the day), high car tax, petrol duty, speed
> cameras (bet they never get used much) oncoming road tolls,
> etc etc. After
> all we have excellent cheap frequent buses, affordable train
> and tube season
> tickets, a safe system for women after 6pm, easy
> cross-suburban bus journeys,
> err well don't we?
> Of course its cheaper for the government to blame drivers,
> then ram home that
> blame with revenue raising measures, than to actually spend
> money on better,
> safer, cheaper, frequent, public transport. Guess what with
> multinationals
> looking for low tax locations it mightn't be a good idea to
> tax them for a
> decent transport system. That would drive them off quickly.
> Almost as quickly
> as an 8-milion strong city that's grinding to a halt for lack
> of decent
> transport in fact.
>
> Hillary Shaw, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
> [log in to unmask]
>
|