Is Sadiq Khan's ULEZ expansion supported by Science, or not?

[Nevets]

According to City Hall Conservatives Sadiq Khan's organisation tried to bribe a Scientific institution into lying about their research because the conclusion reached by the Scientific institution did not support the requirement for a ULEZ expansion. The claim is made at a London Assembly in the video below. Please watch the clip and give your Scientific opinions on whether or not Science supports Sadiq Khan or not.

Claim made by Sadiq Khan's Scientific research team - Despite these improvements in air quality there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period. (This is referring to the ULEZ that was implemented in Central London).

Claim made that Sadiq Khan's deputy Mayor sent an email to the Scientific institution saying - Hi Chris, Shirley has reviewed your study and has asked if you could reword your letter as it reads like Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all

Summary

The claim is that according to Sadiq Khan's very own Science institution whom he paid nearly one million pound to research the effects of car pollution on people's health, his very own Scentific institution said "there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period", and therefor Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all, and are simply a cash cow.

So, what is the opinion of the Scientific community regarding the effects of Low Emission Zones?

Edited September 14, 2023 by Nevets
grammar

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

As per forums rules, a discussion must be possible without watching a video or follow any external links. Please summarize the primary claims so that a discussion is possible, otherwise the thread will be closed.

 

[Nevets]

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

!

Moderator Note

As per forums rules, a discussion must be possible without watching a video or follow any external links. Please summarize the primary claims so that a discussion is possible, otherwise the thread will be closed.

 

Ok, please give me some time to make an argument for debate, and I will Edit my post

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Nevets said:

Summary

The claim is that according to Sadiq Khan's very own Science institution whom he paid nearly one million pound to research the effects of car pollution on people's health, his very own Scentific institution said "there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period", and therefor Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all, and are simply a cash cow.

So, what is the opinion of the Scientific community regarding the effects of Low Emission Zones?

Finding no evidence doesn't prove that statement, even if it points in that direction. You have to examine the nature of the research and how it was done.

[Nevets]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Finding no evidence doesn't prove that statement, even if it points in that direction. You have to examine the nature of the research and how it was done.

As I am not a Scientist I can't conduct my own studies, and I am reliant upon reading Scientific literature to form my opinions. Are you aware of any proven Scientific research which supports the requirement for Low Emission Zones that we are seeing pop up all over Europe, and not just in London?

[mistermack]

One child died of asthma, a few years ago, and the coroner claimed that the death was linked to vehicle emissions. For that reason, the case got huge publicity in the press, even though children die of asthma in the countryside too. So now, the whole of London has to turn cartwheels and pay through the nose, just because Kahn thought that there would be votes in it for him. It's actually the poorer section who will have to pay, the richer ones' vehicles are probably exempt, due to being newer, or electric. 

When I were a lad, you had smogs in London that really did kill people, asthmatic or otherwise. We had it tough. Who'd a' thought that global warming would cause such an deluge of snowflakes?

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, Nevets said:

As I am not a Scientist I can't conduct my own studies, and I am reliant upon reading Scientific literature to form my opinions. Are you aware of any proven Scientific research which supports the requirement for Low Emission Zones that we are seeing pop up all over Europe, and not just in London?

I am not aware of any. No. But I tend to believe that if something is bad for you then the less the better, though I do drive vehicles and contribute to pollution.

The devil is in the details.

[exchemist]

28 minutes ago, Nevets said:

As I am not a Scientist I can't conduct my own studies, and I am reliant upon reading Scientific literature to form my opinions. Are you aware of any proven Scientific research which supports the requirement for Low Emission Zones that we are seeing pop up all over Europe, and not just in London?

There is research showing the effect of air pollution on health and also research showing the improvement in London air quality since the original central area ULEZ was created. It's probably too soon to have research directly on the impact on health of ULEZ, as these health effects become apparent over a period of many years, but it would seem quite reasonable to infer from the above that ULEZ has a beneficial impact. (I'm in London and the air is still filthy: I can wipe a black film off the glass topped table in the garden after only 24hrs.) 

P.S. It looks from this link that there is a study now in the works to see what difference to health ULEZ is making: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.04.21251049v1.full.pdf. But we'll need to wait for some years before it reports, of course.

Edited September 14, 2023 by exchemist

[Nevets]

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

One child died of asthma, a few years ago, and the coroner claimed that the death was linked to vehicle emissions. For that reason, the case got huge publicity in the press, even though children die of asthma in the countryside too. So now, the whole of London has to turn cartwheels and pay through the nose, just because Kahn thought that there would be votes in it for him. It's actually the poorer section who will have to pay, the richer ones' vehicles are probably exempt, due to being newer, or electric. 

When I were a lad, you had smogs in London that really did kill people, asthmatic or otherwise. We had it tough. Who'd a' thought that global warming would cause such an deluge of snowflakes?

Yes, the claim about the child that had air pollution as the reason for death on the death certificate is in fact true, I believe. Perhaps someone with Scientific knowledge could confirm just how a coroner could possibally know for a fact that a child's death was directly caused by air pollution. If nobody can, then I may consider this diagnosis to also be unscientific.

I will be honest, my concern is that Low Emission Zones are just cash cows.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

There is research showing the effect of air pollution on health and also research showing the improvement in London air quality since the original central area ULEZ was created. It's probably too soon to have research directly on the impact on health of ULEZ, as these health effects become apparent over a period of many years, but it would seem quite reasonable to infer from the above that ULEZ has a beneficial impact. (I'm in London and the air is still filthy: I can wipe a black film off the glass topped table in the garden after only 24hrs.) 

The original ULEZ area in London was tiny, so the improvement will be tiny. You can't put all improvement down to ULEZ anyway, because cars are getting less polluting constantly, as old ones are scrapped and new ones are bought. You would have to compare the improvement to a non-ULEZ equivalent, to get a truer picture of any effect. There will of course be SOME effect, but it's likely to be tiny, and only in certain weather, because the wind will play a huge part generally. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There is research showing the effect of air pollution on health and also research showing the improvement in London air quality since the original central area ULEZ was created. It's probably too soon to have research directly on the impact on health of ULEZ, as these health effects become apparent over a period of many years, but it would seem quite reasonable to infer from the above that ULEZ has a beneficial impact. (I'm in London and the air is still filthy: I can wipe a black film off the glass topped table in the garden after only 24hrs.) 

Good post. There could well be a lag in any case, with many having symptoms developing pre-ULEZ and showing up after.

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The original ULEZ area in London was tiny, so the improvement will be tiny. You can't put all improvement down to ULEZ anyway, because cars are getting less polluting constantly, as old ones are scrapped and new ones are bought. You would have to compare the improvement to a non-ULEZ equivalent, to get a truer picture of any effect. There will of course be SOME effect, but it's likely to be tiny, and only in certain weather, because the wind will play a huge part generally. 

Also good.

[Nevets]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There is research showing the effect of air pollution on health and also research showing the improvement in London air quality since the original central area ULEZ was created. It's probably too soon to have research directly on the impact on health of ULEZ, as these health effects become apparent over a period of many years, but it would seem quite reasonable to infer from the above that ULEZ has a beneficial impact. (I'm in London and the air is still filthy: I can wipe a black film off the glass topped table in the garden after only 24hrs.) 

I hope the research that you cite is not from The Imperial College, because it is alleged that Sadiq Khan lied about what The Imperial College believed. In actual fact The Imperial College believe that ULEZ will have less than a 3% improvement on air quality in London.

I would like to see Science which counters that of The Imperial College.

 College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital. College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital.

[exchemist]

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

One child died of asthma, a few years ago, and the coroner claimed that the death was linked to vehicle emissions. For that reason, the case got huge publicity in the press, even though children die of asthma in the countryside too. So now, the whole of London has to turn cartwheels and pay through the nose, just because Kahn thought that there would be votes in it for him. It's actually the poorer section who will have to pay, the richer ones' vehicles are probably exempt, due to being newer, or electric. 

When I were a lad, you had smogs in London that really did kill people, asthmatic or otherwise. We had it tough. Who'd a' thought that global warming would cause such an deluge of snowflakes?

Spot the non-sequitur. This has, of course, bugger all to do with climate change.

London has been found to have poor air quality, especially along busy trunk roads where poorer people tend to live, sufficient to have adverse impact on health. The fact that it was worse in the 1950s is no kind of argument for saying it is acceptable now. 

1 minute ago, Nevets said:

I hope the research that you cite is not from The Imperial College, because it is alleged that Sadiq Khan lied about what The Imperial College believed. In actual fact The Imperial College believe that ULEZ will have less than a 3% improvement on air quality in London.

I would like to see Science which counters that of The Imperial College.

 College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital. College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital.

Please provide substantiation of this allegation that does not rely on a YouTube video. YouTube is full of crap. (And that fat git with the glasses is the moron who said you can grow concrete, so we can safely discount anything he has to say.😄)

By the way, it's called Imperial College, not The Imperial College.

 

 

[Nevets]

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Spot the non-sequitur. This has, of course, bugger all to do with climate change.

London has been found to have poor air quality, especially along busy trunk roads where poorer people tend to live, sufficient to have adverse impact on health. The fact that it was worse in the 1950s is no kind of argument for saying it is acceptable now. 

Please provide substantiation of this allegation that does not rely on a YouTube video. YouTube is full of crap. (And that fat git with the glasses is the moron who said you can grow concrete, so we can safely discount anything he has to say.😄)

By the way, it's called Imperial College, not The Imperial College.

 

 

That is fine. You can accuse Peter Fortune, the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party and London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley of telling lies at the London Assembly and Talk TV all you like. But why if he is lying about Imperial College's stance on ULEZ, has no other politicians accused of him of this? Do you have anything to support your conspiracy theory that the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party is telling lies?

Edited September 14, 2023 by Nevets

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, Nevets said:

 

That is fine. You can accuse Peter Fortune, the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party and London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley of telling lies at the London Assembly and Talk TV all you like. But why if he is lying about Imeprial College's stance on ULEZ, has no other politicians accused of him of this? Do you have anything to support your conspiracy theory that the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party is telling lies?

It is all in a day's work for one politician to claim another is telling lies, or to make assertions that indeed turn out to be lies. Let's have a proper reference for this claim. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by exchemist

[Nevets]

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It is all in a day's work for one politician to claim another is telling lies. I am not such a fool as to automatically take the word of a politician at face value. Are you? 

Well, there appears to be widespread belief across the internet that Sadiq Khan misrepresented his Scientific report. This appears to have gone unchallenged. There also appears to be no notable challenge from anyone regarding Peter Fortune's allegations. This would make me suspect that disbelieving Peter Fortune's allegations could fall into the category of conspiracy theory.

Also, as the accusations against Sadiq Khan are so widespread across the internet, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide any further documentation whatsoever. It is your responsibility to do your own due-diligence, and the accusation is well reported enough and notable enough that you can easily find copious amounts of results yourself by simply consulting any of many internet platforms, including Google.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Nevets

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Quote

Also, as the accusations against Sadiq Khan are so widespread across the internet, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide any further documentation whatsoever. It is your responsibility to do your own due-diligence, and the accusation is well reported enough and notable enough that you can easily find copious amounts of results yourself by simply consulting any of many internet platforms, including Google.

Thanks for providing a summary. However, pointing to the same rule, if you intend to discuss specifics (e.g. claims made by politicians and or a research group) it would help to provide a quote that highlights the issue you want to discuss. It is your topic after all and having folks search for whatever you mean to discuss is not really conducive to for a discussion.

 

[mistermack]

I think that Khan has made a blunder, and he will get kicked out next election. He obviously thought that there was votes in it, and maybe there are, but they might go both ways. What there definitely is, is money in it, but hopefully it will be another mayor that gets to spend it. 

The press seem to have given him an easy ride, considering he was actively trying to get the people who did the study to change the verdict, which is on record and undeniable. Very like Donald Trump, on the phone to Georgia trying to get the election result changed. Just as blatant, but Khan seems to have got away with that for now. 

[studiot]

I agree that ULEZ is controversial and raises hackles on both sides of the argument.

So first tell me

During Covid, which you obviously survived, did you follow the recommended guidelines and wash you hands many more times than usual ?

If so Why ?

 

As regards clean air I remember commissioning a safety study for health and safety purposes on the M% motorway in rural Somerset.

I forget the exact levels now, but the worrying fact there  was that we found a black deposit on the top of the lower flanges of the many girder overbridges that we have.
This black deposit contained sufficiently high levels of lead to reder it unsafe to handle.

We eventually employed a new technique, pionered to clean similar deposits from the ceiling of road tunnels in New York.

[Nevets]

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

!

Moderator Note

Thanks for providing a summary. However, pointing to the same rule, if you intend to discuss specifics (e.g. claims made by politicians and or a research group) it would help to provide a quote that highlights the issue you want to discuss. It is your topic after all and having folks search for whatever you mean to discuss is not really conducive to for a discussion.

 

I already provided this. The quote is below the YouTube video. The problem is that I have not worked out how to use the quote facility properly.

"It has been revealed that Sadiq Khan's deputy Mayor for the Environment, Shirley Rodrigues sought to interfere with scientists hired by the Mayor's office. Sadiq Khan relies upon their research as evidence to back up his unpopular Londonwide ULEZ expansion"

"At the London Assembly's Plenary, Peter Fortune AM seconded a motion condemning the Mayor and his team's behaviour, and calling for ULEZ to be cancelled as a result".

 the

Quote

It emerged on Sunday that Ms Rodrigues had asked a City Hall-funded expert to counter science that questioned the benefits of Ulez, which involves a £12.50 daily fee for the most polluting vehicles.

LondThe Independenton

Ok, I think I am getting the hang of the quote function now!

OkPlenary, Peter Fortune AM seconded a motion condemning the Mayor and his team's behaviour, and calling for ULEZ to be cancelled as a result.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Nevets

[studiot]

15 hours ago, Nevets said:

onsider this diagnosis to also be unscientific.

I will be honest, my concern is that Low Emission Zones are just cash cows.

The only clean air zone in Somerset is in Bath and that is too new for any figures.

But here is a similar question about busgates.

 

 

 

On point about all the'nice little earners' is that the legislation that permits an authority to levy charges or fines limits what can be done with the money collected.

In many cases it goes straight to (disappears in )the national treasury.