Pollution Study in Commuters, Test subjects required

I am getting a mask again but mainly because I get some irritating dust or pollen particles
stuck in my throat on every single ride causing a horrible cough.

The London version of the famous Arab insult:

"May the pollen of a thousand plane trees infest your eyelids."

London is the most pollluted city in Europe, FACT.

Why need to have a study done when we know this? study after study after study and nothing being done (or little) about tackling the poor air quality in London.

Where are these studies?

Scoble needs no proof. Scoble make proof.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/maps/ozone/map

shows that actually, we're not that bad on ozone.

But, there's gaming in where the monitors are.

A cabbie told me recently that he gets 18 mpg max from his TXII. The mid (late?) TXIs are apparently better with a 2.7 ltr Nissan engine (IIRC). All of the oldest ones will have to be taken off the road in London - they'll still be allowed elsewhere. I think it might have been cabs more than 4 years old, don't remember.

I don't understand why cabs are treated as public transport - they are chauffeurs you pay by the hour, and completely at odds with the shared ethos of other public transport - I wonder if they should be treated like cars (not allowed in bus lanes, no special privileges).

I have not thought this through on any deep level, it just occurs to me occasionally when cycling around.

Maybe I should start wearing a mask.

http://fullfact.org/node/24372/revisions/24536/view

It gets really fucking boring doing other people's work.

Thanks Chalfie
heads for the Pollution Masks thread

Where are these studies?

According to recent news, Pernik in Bulgaria is now the most polluted.

Other new is this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/25/london-air-pollution-europe

Last year thought.

London is the most pollluted city in Europe, FACT.

Why need to have a study done when we know this? study after study after study and nothing being done (or little) about tackling the poor air quality in London.

Bullshit.

According to recent news, Pernik in Bulgaria is now the most polluted.

Other new is this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/25/london-air-pollution-europe

Last year thought.

But it says London isn't the worst, rather it's among the worst.

Did you learn your use of facts from Pisti?

Melt! Plastic!

Etc

Am I doing it right?

That's published in 2011. My link is from 2012.

Still, the fact stands thought, FUCK OFF Ed.

the link to the european air quality website doesn't work

lookie here:

http://www.airqualitynow.eu/comparing_home.php

edit: off the scale yesterday, average today.

unfortunately there is not yearly average data available for london.

Er. there is.
Fuck me.

http://www.airqualitynow.eu/comparing_city_annual.php?london

Paris is worse than London.

http://www.airqualitynow.eu/comparing_city_annual.php?paris

Blah blah blah...Increased AM carbon in cyclists is due, in part, to the longer time taken to travel to work and
exposure to high local concentrations of BC...etc

I have never had a job where it takes me longer to ride than to use public transport / car, and I would wager that is the case for the vast majority of cyclists.

Smells like bollocks to me.

Read the proportion of time spent commuting.

Can't see anything about that in your link. Whatchoo mean?

Would need to add in particulates etc breathed in on the tube and so forth to give a complete picture, surely?

i.e. those on public transport are not in perfect atmospheric conditions.

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2012/02/22/09031936.00195711.long

Cyclists spend more time commuting, in their 2 compared populations, and are exposed to more BC.

I think London is also a bit special that it effectively removed all modern engines from central areas
with the congestion charge. All that's left are old style diesel engines in buses, taxis and lorries.
The Vans are probably the only ones that might have modern filters.

Eh? So, er, none of the cars we see day to day in central London have modern engines. Hybrids, electric cars, and low-emission vehicles are removed by the congestion charge despite the fact they're exempt. The low emission zone and its daily charges for particularly polluting commercial vehicles has been completely ineffective and only old-style diesels are left.

Glad we've got that cleared up then.

(Or maybe you've got a bit of a special take on reality, just maybe ...)

jsabine is right. Previous efforts to introduce a Lower Emission Zone (LEZ) in Central London are currently completely dead. The Congestion Charge is less effective than it was at first as the charge hasn't gone up with inflation, and the Western Extension, the first segment of a putative larger, 'doughnut' zone around the original zone, was abolished by the current Mayor. You can therefore expect all kinds of motor vehicles in Central London (of which much of the area of the Western Extension is a part).

Towards the end of his mayoralty, Livingstone introduced a lack of clarity into what he wanted to do with these zones when he started to expand its remit to lowering emissions. This confused a lot of people and the public narrative that was meant to justify them weakened. In the meantime, technology has moved on and there is actually no real necessity to introduce those fixed zone boundaries. The current problem is that the availability of different options has paralysed decision-making around the issues. There is also a strong story about how these measures are gimmicky and not comprehensive enough to transform London.

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2012/02/22/09031936.00195711.long

Cyclists spend more time commuting, in their 2 compared populations, and are exposed to more BC.

I may have missed something, but is there any distinction between car-driving 'non-cyclists' and 'non-cyclists' who use public transport?

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2012/02/22/09031936.00195711.long

Cyclists spend more time commuting, in their 2 compared populations, and are exposed to more BC.

Sadly I'm not subscribed to European Respiratory Monthly.

Anyway - that's my point. Their sample populations must be a bit shit.because one of the reasons people cycle is that it is faster. You'd need to compare people on the same length route at the very least to draw a conclusion.
It's not much use to say "they've got more crap in them because they've been exposed to it longer" is it? IANAS, mind.

Can you not access the link? IT is it one of those paywalled journals?

The study’s eligibility criteria were; aged 18 to 40 yr, regularly commuting to work in
either the east-end of London, or in central London for a least 3 yr, no history of
personal smoking or domestic second-hand smoke exposure within the last 3 yr, and
no acute or chronic medical conditions. Exclusion criteria were; clinical respiratory
infection within the previous 3 months, use of candles, wood, open fires in the home,
and commuting to work by car. Car drivers were excluded since the majority of
Londoners do not drive to work. Subjects were classified as cyclists if they habitually
cycled from home to work. Non-cyclists were classified as individuals who
commuted to work by either walking or public transport, or a combination of both.
Subjects were studied November 2010 through March 2011. The local research ethics
committee approved this study, and all subjects provided written consent.

Yes there are flaws in the comparison there.