Top
Best
New

Posted by dabinat 11 hours ago

Scientists stunned by children's lung recovery in ultra low emission zone(www.bbc.com)
292 points | 234 commentspage 2
collabs 4 hours ago|
What is more amazing to me is I thought this wouldn't be localized. I thought we have on earth and one atmosphere but clearly not? Like the standard of living can wildly change if we change our own local area. We don't need people in Montreal or Paris to come up with a plan?

So unlike greenhouse gases, which can last in the atmosphere for years, seems like NO2 and particulates only stay in the air for less than a day or a few days. This is an amazing little fact because we can start small and call for meaningful reform where we live without requiring a global coordination. Maybe there will be a global consensus later but it doesn't matter because we can start making improvements today within our own local context. The bonus is we will likely also lower our own carbon footprint as we reduce our other emissions. I think this is the "selfish" breakthrough we need to convince people.

When I say it doesn't matter, I don't mean like cross border contamination does not happen but rather that we can improve our own lives with our own action regardless of what others do.

The obvious actionable thing that you can do for your own life is to stop using or being around gasoline or petrol powered two stroke engines such as in a leaf blower. But we can do more. We can completely ban these two stroke engines from being sold at all and that will bring meaningful improvements in weeks, not years.

The problem is to make more impact, we will need to actually get people to give up or retrofit their existing equipment. We will need to educate people about the harms that these things cause and why the change is good. However, in today's siloed world, I don't think it will be easy at all. So perhaps the most difficult part ironically in a very connected and yet siloed world is the marketing of this idea and connecting the required change in behavior with the benefits.

As we saw with the leaf blower example, the costs are concentrated, yes but so are the benefits! The benefits are NOT at all diffuse because guess who benefits the most from not inhaling in gasoline fumes? The person operating the leaf blower!

IrishTechie 4 hours ago||
The localisation of it struck me when I read an Irish EPA report on traffic-related air pollution a few years ago that recommended carrying your child if you were walking regularly near heavy traffic. The air at 0.8m (their breathing height) has 5-15% more NOx in it than the air at 2m (the height they would breath at being carried by you).
shawabawa3 4 hours ago||
I remember reading something similar about walking on the part of the pavement furthest from the road, because being an extra meter or so away makes a big difference
collabs 3 hours ago||
A quick note for my fellow US Americans -- A British speaker calling it 'pavement' is referring to what we call the sidewalk.
rcxdude 4 hours ago||
Most air pollution is pretty localized. CFCs and greenhouse gases are the biggest outliers for how global their effects are.
tomcam 5 hours ago||
> Initial results showed children's lungs in London were smaller in capacity than those in Luton

Sure but they had to live in Luton

pcrh 3 hours ago||
Link to the original study below, free to access [0]. The key data appear to be this:

>At baseline, 184 (14%) of 1280 children with successful FEV1 measurement in London had a clinically low FEV1 (pre-bronchodilator FEV1 <80% of predicted value) compared with 126 (9%) of 1339 children in Luton (appendix p 8). At the end of the study, these values had dropped to 51 (9%) of 585 children in London and 41 (7%) of 606 children in Luton (appendix p 8).

So the proportion of children with low lung function dropped from 14% to 9% in London, and from 9% to 7% at the comparator site in Luton. It's not that much different, though any improvement is obviously welcome.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...

8by3 2 hours ago||
Seems electric cars produce the same or sometimes more non combustion particulates than ICE cars, eg. bits of road and tire that are flung into the air while driving.

So EVs are better than ICE for air quality, but fewer cars even better.

dan-robertson 2 hours ago||
I think it’s mostly break dust. Electric cars are heavier but can also hopefully mostly use regenerative breaking instead of break pads. Road vibrations (and wear?) tend to go as the fourth power of weight over the axle and so it tends to be worse for (naturally heavier) electric cars but even worse for goods vehicles.
dzhiurgis 1 hour ago||
But london tube have order of magnitude of dust pollution and buses damage roads (aka pollute) 30,000 (yes 30k) times more due to weight.
wartywhoa23 5 hours ago||
Newsflash, living in a healthy environment is healthy!
internet_points 5 hours ago||
It was news to me that the lung damage from pollution isn't necessarily permanent in children, if a change in environment happens early enough. Up until reading this, I was under the impression it would be.

We had a lot of construction work in the neighborhood, our house covered in fine dust particles each day. My kid got asthma in the same period, keeps asking when she can stop taking the medicines, and I say "I don't know" thinking "probably never". But maybe now the construction work is over, there is hope? (And if construction starts again, we know that it is better to move, because there is hope.)

TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago|||
Of course, but governments and corporations have consistently argued otherwise.

In the UK's far-right media culture, Khan's ULEZ is painted as fringe extremism, not as a common sense public health measure.

noelwelsh 5 hours ago||
Pointless anti-intellectualism.

There is a big difference between believing something is true, and demonstrating it is true and measuring the effect. One is a vibe. The other can drive policy.

herbst 6 hours ago||
When I talk about health implications I often end up saying "but it's less bad than living next to a street" which statistically many things we spend time optimizing about are.

However most people live next to a busy street ...

itsyonas 5 hours ago|
The street isn't the problem. Cars and trucks are. If those streets were filled with people walking, cycling, etc., the health penalty of living next to one would vanish overnight.
adrianN 5 hours ago|||
A street full of EVs in a traffic jam is also pretty good. No exhaust pollution and low tire wear due to low speeds and low acceleration.
itsyonas 44 minutes ago||
Sure, but it still has the 90% of issues caused by ICE cars.
herbst 5 hours ago|||
Ok that's not what I consider a "busy street" but I get your point, need better wording there.
itsyonas 5 hours ago|||
Why not? A lot of streets often seem busy simply due to the incredible space inefficiency of cars. What I like to do sometimes, when I wait at a traffic light with my bicycle, is to count the actual number of cars that cross during a phase. The amount feels large, but when you count, it's often not more than the amount of cyclists that cross in the next phase, and they take up just a tiny fraction of what cars need.
herbst 4 hours ago||
Sure it absolutely makes sense. But for me and my eyes 200 people passing by are somehow still less "busy" than 25 loud and stinky cars. That's what I mean with I need better wording
rsynnott 4 hours ago|||
Generally, the busiest streets are pedestrianised; you just can't move that volume of people in cars.

(Actually, the _very_ busiest streets are probably major bus gates (where, again, there are no cars), those can have fairly ridiculous density at peak times.

rob74 4 hours ago||
Opinion article on this by Sadiq Khan, the London mayor who introduced ULEZ:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/18/ulez-h...

stevezsa8 3 hours ago||
The sad thing is... when the ULEZ went into effect, there were some wild conspiracy theories about it. Suddenly even my father was an expert and viewed it as sinister government intervention - all because of youtube crackpots. I couldn't get him to relate to my view that cleaner air must be a good thing.

I bet if some youtube weirdos pushed out videos against "big soap" for making us unnecessarily clean our hands after pooping... we'd have a growing following of angry "freedom from big soap" people.

wickedsight 3 hours ago|
> I bet if some youtube weirdos pushed out videos against "big soap" for making us unnecessarily clean our hands after pooping... we'd have a growing following of angry "freedom from big soap" people.

At one point during Covid, I tried (not very hard at all) to float a conspiracy that the vaccine was in fact not the poison, but the antidote. That Covid was deliberately designed by governments to filter the 'independent thinkers' (who won't take the vaccine) from the sheep (those who do take the vaccine). So by not taking the vaccine, you were giving the governments what they wanted.

This was because the conspiracy that governments were killing the loyal sheep with the vaccine, therefore only leaving the 'independent thinkers' behind, made absolutely no sense at all to me.

Animats 5 hours ago||
While having something done at Stanford's hospitals, at one point I was placed in a room with signs indicating it was on a heavily filtered ventilation system rated for COVID, etc. It was striking to be in an environment with air almost to clean room quality.
kahf56 2 hours ago|
Isn't this common sense? What is being "stunned" !!
bjackman 2 hours ago|
If you click the link at the top you'll find it goes to an article. The article will often expand upon the text in the link!!!

In this case:

"While we would expect children's lungs to grow year on year, our results indicate that the London children's lung growth had accelerated during the four years to 'catch up' with the control group in Luton to reach similar levels of lung capacity," researchers say.

"I was absolutely stunned when I first saw the results," Prof Chris Griffiths, a senior author on the study, at Queen Mary University of London, told the BBC.

"The speed of catch up in lung capacity in the London group was surprising and impressive."

More comments...