Pollution will carry on killing people in Southampton until 2030

Excess deaths from air pollution in Southampton stand at 110 every year.

Excess deaths from air pollution in Southampton stand at 110 every year.

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

AIR pollution will continue to kill scores of people every year in Southampton until 2030, the Government has admitted.

Ministers had predicted that European limits on deadly nitrogen dioxide – mainly from vehicle exhausts – would be achieved in the city by 2020.

But officials are now warning that people in the ‘Southampton urban area’ will be exposed to dangerous levels of the gas for a further decade.

Meanwhile, separate figures put the current number of “excess deaths” from nitrogen dioxide and other particulate gases in Southampton at 110 every year.

A further 495 people die annually across Hampshire, including in the New Forest (97), Isle of Wight (78), Fareham (59), Eastleigh (55), Test Valley (51) and Winchester (51).

Southampton is joined by Portsmouth, as well as London, Birmingham and Leeds, on a list of the biggest urban areas where dangerous air pollution will continue until 2030.

The news comes after the Daily Echo revealed earlier this year that an air-monitoring station based close to two of the city’s most congested roads was being axed by city chiefs to cut costs.

The station, based in Millbrook Road, was used to measure potentially toxic fumes from traffic and industries.

The department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) blamed the delay on higher-than-expected emissions from diesel cars.

Diesel has replaced petrol in many cars – because it produces less carbon dioxide, blamed for climate change – but emissions of nitrogen dioxide are higher.

To the Government’s embarrassment, the Eu’s original deadline for meeting the limits was 2010.

Jenny Bates, of Friends of the Earth, said: “Failure to meet air pollution limits in our major cities for another 16 years would have serious impacts on the health of thousands of people.

“These air quality rules should already have been met. Government and councils must make this issue an urgent priority and end this scandal.”

The revised estimates were buried on Defra’s website, after it became clear that the laboratory test for car emissions underestimates the amount of air pollution from diesel cars.

The EU’s air quality directive sets a limit of no more than 40 micrograms of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre of air that we breathe, as an annual average.

But according to Defra, that annual average will be 66 in Southampton in 2015, falling to 48 (in 2020), 41 (in 2025) and to 39 (in 2030).

The European Court of Justice will rule by the end of the year on what action Britain needs to take.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:31am Tue 15 Jul 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead.

Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help.

Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS.

I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much.

Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.
So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead. Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help. Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS. I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much. Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 9

12:34pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Bagamn says...

The Council is going to discuss this problem. That means that nothing will get done about it. Just more hot air polluting the atmosphere. Do away with half the traffic lights causing hold-up and there will be less pollution. Does this Council need to go back to school to be taught how to think properly? Halving the traffic light will also save on power as twelve sets of lights on one roundabout is ridiculous
The Council is going to discuss this problem. That means that nothing will get done about it. Just more hot air polluting the atmosphere. Do away with half the traffic lights causing hold-up and there will be less pollution. Does this Council need to go back to school to be taught how to think properly? Halving the traffic light will also save on power as twelve sets of lights on one roundabout is ridiculous Bagamn
  • Score: 10

12:56pm Tue 15 Jul 14

AFrustratedCyclist says...

Reducing traffic lights is no answer at all, it's a drop in the ocean at best!

What the city needs is a proper rethink and push to get more people out of their cars more often. Far far too many single occupancy cars stream into out and the city every day.

Bus, Train, Walk, Cycle even car share would be a massive improvement, or the city implementing a park and ride.
No those options won't work for everybody but they'll work for more than do.
Reducing traffic lights is no answer at all, it's a drop in the ocean at best! What the city needs is a proper rethink and push to get more people out of their cars more often. Far far too many single occupancy cars stream into out and the city every day. Bus, Train, Walk, Cycle even car share would be a massive improvement, or the city implementing a park and ride. No those options won't work for everybody but they'll work for more than do. AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 6

1:07pm Tue 15 Jul 14

arthur boutfaith says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead.

Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help.

Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS.

I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much.

Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.
Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help.
As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas.
The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4.
The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead. Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help. Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS. I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much. Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.[/p][/quote]Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help. As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas. The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4. The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution. arthur boutfaith
  • Score: 7

1:16pm Tue 15 Jul 14

BeyondImagination says...

Park and ride would keep lots of vehicles out of the city.
Park and ride would keep lots of vehicles out of the city. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 2

1:21pm Tue 15 Jul 14

elvisimo says...

less flatulence from the fatties would help improve air quality substantially...
less flatulence from the fatties would help improve air quality substantially... elvisimo
  • Score: 2

1:29pm Tue 15 Jul 14

AFrustratedCyclist says...

arthur boutfaith wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead.

Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help.

Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS.

I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much.

Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.
Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help.
As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas.
The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4.
The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.
one of the few bits of my commute that has a reasonable off road cycle path has cars parked on every every single day.

The police nor the council or the couple of local councillors I've contacted about it have done anything to make any difference what so ever.
[quote][p][bold]arthur boutfaith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead. Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help. Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS. I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much. Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.[/p][/quote]Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help. As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas. The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4. The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.[/p][/quote]one of the few bits of my commute that has a reasonable off road cycle path has cars parked on every every single day. The police nor the council or the couple of local councillors I've contacted about it have done anything to make any difference what so ever. AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 2

2:01pm Tue 15 Jul 14

teamgreen says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
arthur boutfaith wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead.

Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help.

Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS.

I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much.

Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.
Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help.
As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas.
The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4.
The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.
one of the few bits of my commute that has a reasonable off road cycle path has cars parked on every every single day.

The police nor the council or the couple of local councillors I've contacted about it have done anything to make any difference what so ever.
on the avenue by any chance,everyday someone parks by the shops and blocks the cycle path.
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur boutfaith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead. Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help. Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS. I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much. Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.[/p][/quote]Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help. As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas. The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4. The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.[/p][/quote]one of the few bits of my commute that has a reasonable off road cycle path has cars parked on every every single day. The police nor the council or the couple of local councillors I've contacted about it have done anything to make any difference what so ever.[/p][/quote]on the avenue by any chance,everyday someone parks by the shops and blocks the cycle path. teamgreen
  • Score: 2

2:15pm Tue 15 Jul 14

teamgreen says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
arthur boutfaith wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead.

Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help.

Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS.

I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much.

Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.
Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help.
As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas.
The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4.
The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.
one of the few bits of my commute that has a reasonable off road cycle path has cars parked on every every single day.

The police nor the council or the couple of local councillors I've contacted about it have done anything to make any difference what so ever.
on the avenue by any chance,everyday someone parks by the shops and blocks the cycle path.
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur boutfaith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: So, the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses. The main hotspots in the south include London and Southampton as well as more affluent (prosperous?) areas like Slough, the Medway towns (Chatham, Gillingham, Rochester etc.), Spelthorne, Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead. Action is clearly needed to reduce the impact of diesel emissions on Southampton's busy roads, especially in respect of respiratory health, and this calls out for a 'whole system' approach. Ensuring that buses and HGVs are fitted with less polluting engines is one measure. Also how about more electric-powered motor vehicles? I see very few of these in Southampton. If more people chose to cycle and walk more or take the bus to work that would also help. Solutions to this problem are necessarily complex and require actions by individuals and wider society as well as by corporate bodies (employers, businesses etc.) and regulatory authorities like the Council, Highways Agency or the NHS. I'm not really sure that constantly moaning about the closure of one clapped-out air monitoring station (out of about a dozen dotted across the City) helps us very much. Southampton City Council is about to embark on a 'scrutiny inquiry' into the City's air quality. Let's hope this can come up with some sensible and workable suggestions for action on this really important issue.[/p][/quote]Good points, especially about ensuring buses and lorries are fitted with less polluting engines. Some of the black fumes belching out of the back of some of the First Bus and Brijan fleet are a disgrace. Greater incentives for owners of electric vehicles (free parking perhaps) could help. As I see it, the main obstacle preventing more cyclists commuting, is safety. It's very difficult to safely get across the city in a number of areas. The council made a bit of a balls-up spending over £1M on that debacle of a traffic light system on Itchen Bridgs (let alone the traffic chaos it caused at the time) but they then compound the problem by making no provision for cyclists on the new road development around dock gate 4. The transport policy in this city seems really disjointed and requires a holistic approach to help find a long term solution.[/p][/quote]one of the few bits of my commute that has a reasonable off road cycle path has cars parked on every every single day. The police nor the council or the couple of local councillors I've contacted about it have done anything to make any difference what so ever.[/p][/quote]on the avenue by any chance,everyday someone parks by the shops and blocks the cycle path. teamgreen
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Tue 15 Jul 14

southy says...

And our Councils will still throw every thing down in the bottom end of Town, that will cause grid lock and more polution
And our Councils will still throw every thing down in the bottom end of Town, that will cause grid lock and more polution southy
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Mary80 says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Park and ride would keep lots of vehicles out of the city.
Portsmouth have one and nobody bloody uses it
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Park and ride would keep lots of vehicles out of the city.[/p][/quote]Portsmouth have one and nobody bloody uses it Mary80
  • Score: 3

4:17pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Dan Brain says...

Eastleigh is currently consulting on the local air pollution on Southampton Road and Leigh Road ( and surrounding roads). They are consistently failing to meet safe levels puting local peoples health at risk. The idea's put forward so far are minimal and require more development according to council staff! Counter productive and limited attempts to look like they are tackling the problem but the figures won't lie. The only solution that will make the slightest difference is the Chickenhall Link Road but no one seems to be serious about making it happen.
http://www.eastleigh
.gov.uk/the-council/
news/air-quality-in-
eastleigh.aspx
Eastleigh is currently consulting on the local air pollution on Southampton Road and Leigh Road ( and surrounding roads). They are consistently failing to meet safe levels puting local peoples health at risk. The idea's put forward so far are minimal and require more development according to council staff! Counter productive and limited attempts to look like they are tackling the problem but the figures won't lie. The only solution that will make the slightest difference is the Chickenhall Link Road but no one seems to be serious about making it happen. http://www.eastleigh .gov.uk/the-council/ news/air-quality-in- eastleigh.aspx Dan Brain
  • Score: 2

4:45pm Tue 15 Jul 14

mickey01 says...

Mary80 wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Park and ride would keep lots of vehicles out of the city.
Portsmouth have one and nobody bloody uses it
The problem will not be eased by park and ride which, in this weather works fine but i,m sure there wont be many takers in the cold dark winter when its pi%%ing with rain and blowing a gale
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Park and ride would keep lots of vehicles out of the city.[/p][/quote]Portsmouth have one and nobody bloody uses it[/p][/quote]The problem will not be eased by park and ride which, in this weather works fine but i,m sure there wont be many takers in the cold dark winter when its pi%%ing with rain and blowing a gale mickey01
  • Score: 3

6:37pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen
tral.com/content/pdf
/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Proinflamma
tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Oxidative_s
tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

8:01pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay.

That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation.

Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.
Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay. That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation. Keep Dibden Bay as an open space. Linesman
  • Score: -1

12:55am Wed 16 Jul 14

southamptonadi says...

Linesman wrote:
Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay.

That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation.

Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.
Your thinking outside the box(or city in this case)

Dibden Bay is not in the City so any pollution it has will remove some from here so actually it will help lower pollution in Southampton
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay. That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation. Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.[/p][/quote]Your thinking outside the box(or city in this case) Dibden Bay is not in the City so any pollution it has will remove some from here so actually it will help lower pollution in Southampton southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

7:03am Wed 16 Jul 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen

tral.com/content/pdf

/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Proinflamma

tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Oxidative_s

tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Wed 16 Jul 14

southy says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay.

That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation.

Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.
Your thinking outside the box(or city in this case)

Dibden Bay is not in the City so any pollution it has will remove some from here so actually it will help lower pollution in Southampton
Polution do not stay in one place it can build up in areas like it do in LA, and being a low down area on the South-west Southampton it will build up in this area so any polution that might be cause by having a docks over in Dibden bay would end up on this side of the water and just adding to the problem.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay. That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation. Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.[/p][/quote]Your thinking outside the box(or city in this case) Dibden Bay is not in the City so any pollution it has will remove some from here so actually it will help lower pollution in Southampton[/p][/quote]Polution do not stay in one place it can build up in areas like it do in LA, and being a low down area on the South-west Southampton it will build up in this area so any polution that might be cause by having a docks over in Dibden bay would end up on this side of the water and just adding to the problem. southy
  • Score: 1

1:26pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Linesman says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay.

That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation.

Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.
Your thinking outside the box(or city in this case)

Dibden Bay is not in the City so any pollution it has will remove some from here so actually it will help lower pollution in Southampton
With Westerly winds being the prevailing winds, and Dibden Bay being to the East of the city, it is my contention that any development of Dibden Bay, producing more pollution, the Westerly winds will blow it to Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Just think how much worse it would be if ABP got the go-ahead to develop Dibden Bay. That would increase pollution levels during construction and also during operation. Keep Dibden Bay as an open space.[/p][/quote]Your thinking outside the box(or city in this case) Dibden Bay is not in the City so any pollution it has will remove some from here so actually it will help lower pollution in Southampton[/p][/quote]With Westerly winds being the prevailing winds, and Dibden Bay being to the East of the city, it is my contention that any development of Dibden Bay, producing more pollution, the Westerly winds will blow it to Southampton. Linesman
  • Score: 1

1:47pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen


tral.com/content/pdf


/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Proinflamma


tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Oxidative_s


tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
,,

FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health..


Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is..

And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions...

http://www.nap.edu/o
penbook.php?record_i
d=9676&page=369#p200
03296ttt00035



,,
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.. Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is.. And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions... http://www.nap.edu/o penbook.php?record_i d=9676&page=369#p200 03296ttt00035 ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 7

12:52pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen



tral.com/content/pdf



/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Proinflamma



tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Oxidative_s



tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
,,

FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health..


Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is..

And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions...

http://www.nap.edu/o

penbook.php?record_i

d=9676&page=369#
p200
03296ttt00035



,,
,,

Just for the record... According DEFRA my estimated of 270 "Excess Deaths" per year by 2030 is flawed and grossly underestimated


Ref.. DEFRA's current number of "Excess Deaths" from nitrogen dioxide and other particulate gases in Southampton is 110


Also below Ref... In 2009 the European Environment Agency (EEA), said "excess deaths" from nitrogen dioxide and other particulate gases in Southampton numbered 81

It should be noted.. DEFRA in 2009 ( without given figures ) said it believed the report by the European Environment Agency (EEA), was flawed... i.e. the 81 "Excess Deaths" in Southampton were lower.


Not factoring in DEFRA's 2009 lower none extant figures

If that 5 year trend continues "Excess Deaths" in Southampton will exceed 148 in 2020, 200 in 2025... and 270 deaths per year by 2030


Say DEFRA was right in 2009 and "Excess Deaths" deaths" in Southampton were lower?

According to DEFRA ( If the 5 year trend continues) my estimated of 270 "Excess Deaths" per year by 2030 is flawed and grossly underestimated.



Ref... SOUTH'S AIR POLLUTION DEATH TOLL

9:27am Thursday 28th May 2009 .

By Andy Tate.

HUNDREDS of people are dying early each year in the south because of air pollution,

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/environm
ent/4401995.South_s_
air_pollution_death_
toll/




To rub it in, 2009 DEFRA said... "Air quality has improved significantly over the past ten years and we are committed to improving air quality further, "we are working with those who can help to reduce emissions to explore what further approaches will be needed across the country.

Since 2009 air quality hasn't improved and "Excess Deaths" per year in Southampton are higher..


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.. Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is.. And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions... http://www.nap.edu/o penbook.php?record_i d=9676&page=369# p200 03296ttt00035 ,,[/p][/quote],, Just for the record... According DEFRA my estimated of 270 "Excess Deaths" per year by 2030 is flawed and grossly underestimated Ref.. DEFRA's current number of "Excess Deaths" from nitrogen dioxide and other particulate gases in Southampton is 110 Also below Ref... In 2009 the European Environment Agency (EEA), said "excess deaths" from nitrogen dioxide and other particulate gases in Southampton numbered 81 It should be noted.. DEFRA in 2009 ( without given figures ) said it believed the report by the European Environment Agency (EEA), was flawed... i.e. the 81 "Excess Deaths" in Southampton were lower. Not factoring in DEFRA's 2009 lower none extant figures If that 5 year trend continues "Excess Deaths" in Southampton will exceed 148 in 2020, 200 in 2025... and 270 deaths per year by 2030 Say DEFRA was right in 2009 and "Excess Deaths" deaths" in Southampton were lower? According to DEFRA ( If the 5 year trend continues) my estimated of 270 "Excess Deaths" per year by 2030 is flawed and grossly underestimated. Ref... SOUTH'S AIR POLLUTION DEATH TOLL 9:27am Thursday 28th May 2009 . By Andy Tate. HUNDREDS of people are dying early each year in the south because of air pollution, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/environm ent/4401995.South_s_ air_pollution_death_ toll/ To rub it in, 2009 DEFRA said... "Air quality has improved significantly over the past ten years and we are committed to improving air quality further, "we are working with those who can help to reduce emissions to explore what further approaches will be needed across the country. Since 2009 air quality hasn't improved and "Excess Deaths" per year in Southampton are higher.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

2:08pm Tue 22 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
Reducing traffic lights is no answer at all, it's a drop in the ocean at best!

What the city needs is a proper rethink and push to get more people out of their cars more often. Far far too many single occupancy cars stream into out and the city every day.

Bus, Train, Walk, Cycle even car share would be a massive improvement, or the city implementing a park and ride.
No those options won't work for everybody but they'll work for more than do.
,,,

AFrustratedCyclist says.. Proper rethink and push to get more people out of their cars, reducing traffic lights is no answer..


First point.. I'd agree with you only after the introduction of a Citywide 20 mph speed limit..

As a cyclist I would like to see more people out of their cars, but.. only when the roads are more people friendly, it couldn't of passed your attention that number cyclists killed in 2012 rose 10% ?


Secondly, I agree with you.. reducing the number traffic lights maybe really bad idea.. given (as I said back March) SCOOT traffic lighting could reduce the number of pedestrians killed while at the same time KEEPING TRAFFIC FLOWING...




LONDON UNVEILS NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.

14 March 2014.

As part of its commitment to reduce the number of pedestrians killed or injured by 40 percent by 2020, London is to trial new pedestrian crossing sensors to make it easier and safer for people to cross roads in the capital

SCOOT addresses the problem of how to properly time pedestrian crossings in such a way as to make sure as many people as possible cross with the lights, AS WELL AS KEEPING TRAFFIC FLOWING AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. This is especially difficult in high traffic areas. Ideally, the light should be timed to allow everyone to cross, but pedestrian traffic isn't uniform and what might work for two people might not work for a dozen. WORSE, THERE'S THE PROBLEM OF PEDESTRIANS PRESSING THE REQUEST BUTTON AND THEN CROSSING AGAINST THE LIGHTS OR SIMPLY WALKING AWAY, WHICH CREATES NEEDLESS DELAYS.

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/environm
ent/11052875.City_po
llution_sparks_healt
h_alert__The_list_of
_Southampton_blacksp
ots



,,
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: Reducing traffic lights is no answer at all, it's a drop in the ocean at best! What the city needs is a proper rethink and push to get more people out of their cars more often. Far far too many single occupancy cars stream into out and the city every day. Bus, Train, Walk, Cycle even car share would be a massive improvement, or the city implementing a park and ride. No those options won't work for everybody but they'll work for more than do.[/p][/quote],,, AFrustratedCyclist says.. Proper rethink and push to get more people out of their cars, reducing traffic lights is no answer.. First point.. I'd agree with you only after the introduction of a Citywide 20 mph speed limit.. As a cyclist I would like to see more people out of their cars, but.. only when the roads are more people friendly, it couldn't of passed your attention that number cyclists killed in 2012 rose 10% ? Secondly, I agree with you.. reducing the number traffic lights maybe really bad idea.. given (as I said back March) SCOOT traffic lighting could reduce the number of pedestrians killed while at the same time KEEPING TRAFFIC FLOWING... LONDON UNVEILS NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS. 14 March 2014. As part of its commitment to reduce the number of pedestrians killed or injured by 40 percent by 2020, London is to trial new pedestrian crossing sensors to make it easier and safer for people to cross roads in the capital SCOOT addresses the problem of how to properly time pedestrian crossings in such a way as to make sure as many people as possible cross with the lights, AS WELL AS KEEPING TRAFFIC FLOWING AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. This is especially difficult in high traffic areas. Ideally, the light should be timed to allow everyone to cross, but pedestrian traffic isn't uniform and what might work for two people might not work for a dozen. WORSE, THERE'S THE PROBLEM OF PEDESTRIANS PRESSING THE REQUEST BUTTON AND THEN CROSSING AGAINST THE LIGHTS OR SIMPLY WALKING AWAY, WHICH CREATES NEEDLESS DELAYS. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/environm ent/11052875.City_po llution_sparks_healt h_alert__The_list_of _Southampton_blacksp ots ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 1

11:27am Tue 5 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen



tral.com/content/pdf



/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Proinflamma



tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Oxidative_s



tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
,,

FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health..


Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is..

And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions...

http://www.nap.edu/o

penbook.php?record_i

d=9676&page=369#
p200
03296ttt00035



,,
,,

FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses



Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels


Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels)

Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%.

http://www2.warwick.
ac.uk/newsandevents/
pressreleases/1631_b
illion_advanced/



Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ?



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.. Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is.. And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions... http://www.nap.edu/o penbook.php?record_i d=9676&page=369# p200 03296ttt00035 ,,[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels) Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%. http://www2.warwick. ac.uk/newsandevents/ pressreleases/1631_b illion_advanced/ Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ? ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen




tral.com/content/pdf




/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.




org/wiki/Proinflamma




tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.




org/wiki/Oxidative_s




tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
,,

FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health..


Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is..

And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions...

http://www.nap.edu/o


penbook.php?record_i


d=9676&page=369#

p200
03296ttt00035



,,
,,

FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses



Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels


Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels)

Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%.

http://www2.warwick.

ac.uk/newsandevents/

pressreleases/1631_b

illion_advanced/



Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ?



,,
Shoreside electricity or Flywheel Energy Storage for Shipping



Quote Echo August 2008.. SHIPS docking in Southampton could be plugged into an onshore power supply or made to run on cleaner fuel to cut harmful diesel polluting the city.

It was estimated as many as 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by emissions of ships running on cheap, sulphur-rich fuel called bunker oil.

By forcing ships berthed in Southampton to switch off their generators and plug into shoreside electricity, emissions being blown into the city would be dramatically reduced.

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/environm
ent/2429301.Shipping
_in_cleaner_air/



I'm probably a tad bit ahead (by about 10 years ) of the curve here.


On Sky TV a few years ago the Captain of MS Queen Victoria boasted that his ship's six diesel engines could power a City..

I say better than boasting... when MS Queen Victoria is under full steam those six diesel engines could power up a FLYWHEEL and when docked use it's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton..


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.. Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is.. And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions... http://www.nap.edu/o penbook.php?record_i d=9676&page=369# p200 03296ttt00035 ,,[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels) Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%. http://www2.warwick. ac.uk/newsandevents/ pressreleases/1631_b illion_advanced/ Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ? ,,[/p][/quote]Shoreside electricity or Flywheel Energy Storage for Shipping Quote Echo August 2008.. SHIPS docking in Southampton could be plugged into an onshore power supply or made to run on cleaner fuel to cut harmful diesel polluting the city. It was estimated as many as 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by emissions of ships running on cheap, sulphur-rich fuel called bunker oil. By forcing ships berthed in Southampton to switch off their generators and plug into shoreside electricity, emissions being blown into the city would be dramatically reduced. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/environm ent/2429301.Shipping _in_cleaner_air/ I'm probably a tad bit ahead (by about 10 years ) of the curve here. On Sky TV a few years ago the Captain of MS Queen Victoria boasted that his ship's six diesel engines could power a City.. I say better than boasting... when MS Queen Victoria is under full steam those six diesel engines could power up a FLYWHEEL and when docked use it's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

11:06am Sat 9 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen





tral.com/content/pdf





/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.





org/wiki/Proinflamma





tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.





org/wiki/Oxidative_s





tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
,,

FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health..


Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is..

And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions...

http://www.nap.edu/o



penbook.php?record_i



d=9676&page=369#


p200
03296ttt00035



,,
,,

FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses



Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels


Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels)

Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%.

http://www2.warwick.


ac.uk/newsandevents/


pressreleases/1631_b


illion_advanced/



Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ?



,,
Shoreside electricity or Flywheel Energy Storage for Shipping



Quote Echo August 2008.. SHIPS docking in Southampton could be plugged into an onshore power supply or made to run on cleaner fuel to cut harmful diesel polluting the city.

It was estimated as many as 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by emissions of ships running on cheap, sulphur-rich fuel called bunker oil.

By forcing ships berthed in Southampton to switch off their generators and plug into shoreside electricity, emissions being blown into the city would be dramatically reduced.

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/environm

ent/2429301.Shipping

_in_cleaner_air/



I'm probably a tad bit ahead (by about 10 years ) of the curve here.


On Sky TV a few years ago the Captain of MS Queen Victoria boasted that his ship's six diesel engines could power a City..

I say better than boasting... when MS Queen Victoria is under full steam those six diesel engines could power up a FLYWHEEL and when docked use it's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton..


,,
,,


Re: When berthed MS Queen Victoria (all cruise ships) could use a FLYWHEEL's stored energy into dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton..




DEADLY CRUISE AND FERRY AIR EMISSIONS DEBATE: U.K. SHIPPING COMPANIES DECEIVE THE PUBLIC

Posted on June 19, 2014 by Jim Walker

New air emission regulations will shortly affect the U.K. shipping industry. Toxic sulfur emissions must be reduced to 0.1 per cent, from a current high of around 4.5 per cent, by January 1, 2015.

The reason for the new regulations is that high sulfur fuel contributes substantially to emphysema, lung disease, congestive heart failure, birth defects, and premature deaths.

The health risks posed by the cruise industry's use of high sulfur fuels are enormous.

A SINGLE CRUISE SHIP WILL EMIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AS 13,100,000 (MILLION) CARS AND AS MUCH SOOT AS OVER 1,000,000 (MILLION) CARS.

P&O and other U.K. operators have had a long time to implement scrubber technology to protect the health of their passengers and crew and the general public. But they have persistently refused to do so.

http://www.cruiselaw
news.com/articles/po
llution-1/



,,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.. Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is.. And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions... http://www.nap.edu/o penbook.php?record_i d=9676&page=369# p200 03296ttt00035 ,,[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels) Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%. http://www2.warwick. ac.uk/newsandevents/ pressreleases/1631_b illion_advanced/ Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ? ,,[/p][/quote]Shoreside electricity or Flywheel Energy Storage for Shipping Quote Echo August 2008.. SHIPS docking in Southampton could be plugged into an onshore power supply or made to run on cleaner fuel to cut harmful diesel polluting the city. It was estimated as many as 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by emissions of ships running on cheap, sulphur-rich fuel called bunker oil. By forcing ships berthed in Southampton to switch off their generators and plug into shoreside electricity, emissions being blown into the city would be dramatically reduced. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/environm ent/2429301.Shipping _in_cleaner_air/ I'm probably a tad bit ahead (by about 10 years ) of the curve here. On Sky TV a few years ago the Captain of MS Queen Victoria boasted that his ship's six diesel engines could power a City.. I say better than boasting... when MS Queen Victoria is under full steam those six diesel engines could power up a FLYWHEEL and when docked use it's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton.. ,,[/p][/quote],, Re: When berthed MS Queen Victoria (all cruise ships) could use a FLYWHEEL's stored energy into dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton.. DEADLY CRUISE AND FERRY AIR EMISSIONS DEBATE: U.K. SHIPPING COMPANIES DECEIVE THE PUBLIC Posted on June 19, 2014 by Jim Walker New air emission regulations will shortly affect the U.K. shipping industry. Toxic sulfur emissions must be reduced to 0.1 per cent, from a current high of around 4.5 per cent, by January 1, 2015. The reason for the new regulations is that high sulfur fuel contributes substantially to emphysema, lung disease, congestive heart failure, birth defects, and premature deaths. The health risks posed by the cruise industry's use of high sulfur fuels are enormous. A SINGLE CRUISE SHIP WILL EMIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AS 13,100,000 (MILLION) CARS AND AS MUCH SOOT AS OVER 1,000,000 (MILLION) CARS. P&O and other U.K. operators have had a long time to implement scrubber technology to protect the health of their passengers and crew and the general public. But they have persistently refused to do so. http://www.cruiselaw news.com/articles/po llution-1/ ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

11:16am Sat 9 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution



We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system..


ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland


Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS.

http://www.biomedcen





tral.com/content/pdf





/1743-8977-6-30.pdf


ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death.

http://en.wikipedia.





org/wiki/Proinflamma





tory_cytokine


ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.





org/wiki/Oxidative_s





tress



Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking..



,,,
I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.
,,

FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health..


Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is..

And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions...

http://www.nap.edu/o



penbook.php?record_i



d=9676&page=369#


p200
03296ttt00035



,,
,,

FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses



Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels


Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels)

Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%.

http://www2.warwick.


ac.uk/newsandevents/


pressreleases/1631_b


illion_advanced/



Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ?



,,
Shoreside electricity or Flywheel Energy Storage for Shipping



Quote Echo August 2008.. SHIPS docking in Southampton could be plugged into an onshore power supply or made to run on cleaner fuel to cut harmful diesel polluting the city.

It was estimated as many as 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by emissions of ships running on cheap, sulphur-rich fuel called bunker oil.

By forcing ships berthed in Southampton to switch off their generators and plug into shoreside electricity, emissions being blown into the city would be dramatically reduced.

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/environm

ent/2429301.Shipping

_in_cleaner_air/



I'm probably a tad bit ahead (by about 10 years ) of the curve here.


On Sky TV a few years ago the Captain of MS Queen Victoria boasted that his ship's six diesel engines could power a City..

I say better than boasting... when MS Queen Victoria is under full steam those six diesel engines could power up a FLYWHEEL and when docked use it's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton..


,,
,,


Re: When berthed MS Queen Victoria (all cruise ships) could use a FLYWHEEL's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton..




DEADLY CRUISE AND FERRY AIR EMISSIONS DEBATE: U.K. SHIPPING COMPANIES DECEIVE THE PUBLIC

Posted on June 19, 2014 by Jim Walker

New air emission regulations will shortly affect the U.K. shipping industry. Toxic sulfur emissions must be reduced to 0.1 per cent, from a current high of around 4.5 per cent, by January 1, 2015.

The reason for the new regulations is that high sulfur fuel contributes substantially to emphysema, lung disease, congestive heart failure, birth defects, and premature deaths.

The health risks posed by the cruise industry's use of high sulfur fuels are enormous.

A SINGLE CRUISE SHIP WILL EMIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AS 13,100,000 (MILLION) CARS AND AS MUCH SOOT AS OVER 1,000,000 (MILLION) CARS.

P&O and other U.K. operators have had a long time to implement scrubber technology to protect the health of their passengers and crew and the general public. But they have persistently refused to do so.

http://www.cruiselaw
news.com/articles/po
llution-1/


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Here's the lie.. Slower Cars Increase Pollution We are told by et al that going slower increases car exhaust pollution overlooking the fact.. that some of the most dangerous pollutants aren't expelled out of a cars exhaust system.. ACCORDING to the Institute for Anatomy, Division of Histology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland and Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, Switzerland Fine metal (iron, copper, manganese) particulate matter originating from DISC BRAKE WEAR CONTRIBUTES UP TO 20% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC EMISSIONS These particles increase PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE responses and damage tight junctions with a mechanism involving OXIDATIVE STRESS. http://www.biomedcen tral.com/content/pdf /1743-8977-6-30.pdf ACCORDING to Wikipedia... PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE promotes systemic inflammation, making a disease worse by producing fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, even shock and death. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Proinflamma tory_cytokine ACCORDING to Wikipedia.. OXIDATIVE STRESS is thought to be involved in the development of Cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Atherosclerosis, Heart failure, Myocardial infarction, Fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lichen planus, Vitiligo,autism, Infection, and Chronic fatigue syndrome. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Oxidative_s tress Its my contention.. a Citywide 20 mph speed limit will reduce some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants caused by unnecessary excessive braking.. ,,,[/p][/quote]I probably agree with you on 20 mph across the city but for different reasons. If the Council is to be persuaded of the benefits of this measure they will need to be presented with compelling evidence of the effectiveness of such a measure in terms of cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says.. the Council needs evidence of the effectiveness, cost and benefits to the environment, economy and health.. Actually.. all the good evidence ( too numerous to mention ) for a Citywide 20 mph speed limit is stacked up against SLOWER CARS INCREASE POLLUTION.. ( lets not forget, the UK faces a £300m EU fine over its failure to meet air pollution targets by 2010... and more fines to follow ) the only way to win over this and all City Councils is show up this misinformation for the lie it is.. And further to that.. We are told that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. research in Germany has shown that THE GREATER THE SPEED OF VEHICLES IN BUILT-UP AREAS, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, BRAKE USE BY 14%(Re: some of the most dangerous Fine metal pollutants are from unnecessary excessive braking) and gasoline use by 12% . This slower ( 19 mph and below ) and calmer style of driving reduces emissions... http://www.nap.edu/o penbook.php?record_i d=9676&page=369# p200 03296ttt00035 ,,[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy says... the main cause of these excess deaths from 'particulates' in our urban centres appears to be diesel fumes emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses Something I'd like to see compulsory ( the sooner the better ) on all of Southampton's Buses and a technology that hardly ever gets any media coverage... Energy Harvesting Flywheels Coincidentally... the Government has just kick off a ten year £1 billion research/development investment in the University of Warwick's Advanced Propulsion Centre Hub to (among other things ) accelerate research into Kinetic Energy Recovery (Flywheels) Quote... the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( Flywheel ) is designed to save the braking energy of a bus as it slows for a stop and use it to accelerate the bus back up to speed. By avoiding wasting the energy every time a bus stops the system is projected to deliver fuel savings in the order of 25%. http://www2.warwick. ac.uk/newsandevents/ pressreleases/1631_b illion_advanced/ Its a no brainer.. compulsory retrofiting Flywheels to all of Southampton's Buses to lower diesel pollution, who'd argue against it ? ,,[/p][/quote]Shoreside electricity or Flywheel Energy Storage for Shipping Quote Echo August 2008.. SHIPS docking in Southampton could be plugged into an onshore power supply or made to run on cleaner fuel to cut harmful diesel polluting the city. It was estimated as many as 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by emissions of ships running on cheap, sulphur-rich fuel called bunker oil. By forcing ships berthed in Southampton to switch off their generators and plug into shoreside electricity, emissions being blown into the city would be dramatically reduced. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/environm ent/2429301.Shipping _in_cleaner_air/ I'm probably a tad bit ahead (by about 10 years ) of the curve here. On Sky TV a few years ago the Captain of MS Queen Victoria boasted that his ship's six diesel engines could power a City.. I say better than boasting... when MS Queen Victoria is under full steam those six diesel engines could power up a FLYWHEEL and when docked use it's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton.. ,,[/p][/quote],, Re: When berthed MS Queen Victoria (all cruise ships) could use a FLYWHEEL's stored energy to dramatically reduce diesel pollution in Southampton.. DEADLY CRUISE AND FERRY AIR EMISSIONS DEBATE: U.K. SHIPPING COMPANIES DECEIVE THE PUBLIC Posted on June 19, 2014 by Jim Walker New air emission regulations will shortly affect the U.K. shipping industry. Toxic sulfur emissions must be reduced to 0.1 per cent, from a current high of around 4.5 per cent, by January 1, 2015. The reason for the new regulations is that high sulfur fuel contributes substantially to emphysema, lung disease, congestive heart failure, birth defects, and premature deaths. The health risks posed by the cruise industry's use of high sulfur fuels are enormous. A SINGLE CRUISE SHIP WILL EMIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AS 13,100,000 (MILLION) CARS AND AS MUCH SOOT AS OVER 1,000,000 (MILLION) CARS. P&O and other U.K. operators have had a long time to implement scrubber technology to protect the health of their passengers and crew and the general public. But they have persistently refused to do so. http://www.cruiselaw news.com/articles/po llution-1/ ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree