Children’s lung capacity in London has increased

I read this, WWM, and was delighted: what a great result.

Great.

Personally, my kids lungs improved once they left our somewhat damp, and definitely rural location.
They did, and do, a lot better in other places.

I had been concerned when they left.
But turned out didnt need to be.

This study involved 3,424 children, 1,664 from 44 schools in central London and 1,750 children from 41 primary schools in Dunstable.

The lungs of the London children had grown.

I am about to read the report findings, as I believe it has more complexity.

Oops, lungs are interesting, they differ in what they will and will not cope with.

I have had asthma and lung problems since birth, the countryside is a nightmare for me. I grew up in central London, on a busy main road, my lungs got worse when we moved to the countryside 🤷‍♀️. I am most comfortable by the sea (but not in it or on it, I am a wuss)

gg13 undoubtedly more complex.

But the headline is so welcome.

I remember reading of children whose lives were blighted by the pollution, and indeed of death attributed to the high level of nitrogen dioxide.

When we left London DS was 7 years old. Up until then he’d had chronic Asthma. Frequently being admitted directly to the children’s ward at the Royal Free. Part of our reasoning for leaving London was the air quality.
His Asthma improved remarkably thereafter and we had no more hospital stays. Anything to improve air quality improves life quality for many.

That’s pretty amazing and, imo, a really good thing!

Well Done to Mayor of London sticking to his guns on this. Anything that helps to improve the health of our children must be good.

That has to be good news.

Whitewavemark2

gg13 undoubtedly more complex.

But the headline is so welcome.

I remember reading of children whose lives were blighted by the pollution, and indeed of death attributed to the high level of nitrogen dioxide.

Anything that makes children and adults healthier has got to be good.

I admit that ULEZ has given us extra transportation costs at work, as we change our vehicles more often to comply, but it is a cost we will have to absorb. Now it is showing benefits it will not bug me so much…

Brilliant news!!
Well done Khan!
And now good results have been made public perhaps some drivers will stop bellyaching.

gg13 you can’t put a price on children’s health

Whitewavemark2

gg13 you can’t put a price on children’s health

I totally agree 👍

Except he's happy for non-compliant vehicles to pollute provided they pay £12.50 per day. If there was true commitment no non-compliant vehicles would be permitted.

Rosie51

Except he's happy for non-compliant vehicles to pollute provided they pay £12.50 per day. If there was true commitment no non-compliant vehicles would be permitted.

I expect there is almost certainly a reason for this if you look.

But you cannot deny that the children’s lungs are a good witness for the success.

But you cannot deny that the children’s lungs are a good witness for the success.

Oh I don't and welcome it.

I just don't think paying to be able to pollute is reasonable or fair. Isn't that why we get so much water pollution because the polluters are happy to pay the fine when they get caught?

I think that is a good and fair point

That's good news.
I remember it was Boris Johnson who, as London Mayor, conceived the ULEZ policy. I was teaching in East London at the time, and our school was included in the survey. I think it was undertaken by Imperial College.

Personally I would ban all cars from roads outside schools during drop-off and pick-up times because most of them just sit there with engines running. Very hard to police, however.

Rosie51

Except he's happy for non-compliant vehicles to pollute provided they pay £12.50 per day. If there was true commitment no non-compliant vehicles would be permitted.

That's the world we live in, Rosie. Hit people in the pocket & you change their behaviour.
Threaten them with the 10th circle of Hell, they'll laugh.

He has made a lot of money for London too as there are fines.
A point to note is that parts of 'Greater London' include countryside and farms and those people would never regard themselves as Londoners. When the ULEZ zone was extended out to 'Greater London' there was little change to air quality.

Charging for non compliant vehicles has led to a huge drop in their numbers - it would have been impractical / impossible to ban them completely from day 1. They don't make loads of money from them and the rationale is to reduce the numbers significantly.

Does everyone not find it strange that higher emission vehicles are bad but if you pay the charge then it’s ok?
Hypocrisy at its highest level
If those vehicles are so bad for health reasons then just ban them don’t take a back hander. I’m sure the children’s lungs can’t tell the difference between fumes from a vehicle that has payed a surcharge and one that hasn’t
Khans coffers can though - just saying

No, it’s not strange, because it’s about the total quantity of emissions reducing? It is Utopian to imagine all vehicles with high emissions could be refused access, at least until the advent of the electric pantechnicon.

Gango

Does everyone not find it strange that higher emission vehicles are bad but if you pay the charge then it’s ok?
Hypocrisy at its highest level
If those vehicles are so bad for health reasons then just ban them don’t take a back hander. I’m sure the children’s lungs can’t tell the difference between fumes from a vehicle that has payed a surcharge and one that hasn’t
Khans coffers can though - just saying

Exactly, Gango and Nannapat1. We’re in Kent/London Borough of Bromley 🙄, surrounded by woodland and trees. Very fortunate, I know.
I’m delighted that inner London children have benefitted from the drop in pollution.