Is pollution causing 77 deaths a year in Richmond?

Richmond and Twickenham Times: Pollution: London has had old fashioned pea-soupers in recent weeks Pollution: London has had old fashioned pea-soupers in recent weeks

Air pollution could be responsible for as many as 77 deaths a year in Richmond, according to Public Health England.

A new report estimated 6.8 per cent of deaths in the borough of those aged over 25 could be caused by a combination of nitrogen-dioxide, sulphur-dioxide and other air-pollutants.

Mortality figures and average pollution levels were used by the agency of the Department of Health to estimate the number of deaths from air pollution.

Neighbouring Hounslow is estimated to have 99 deaths from air pollution, among the highest of the 19 outer London boroughs.

Monica Saunders, publicity officer for the Richmond and Twickenham Green Party, said traffic in built up areas was the main cause of the pollution.

She said: “People tend to use their cars for journeys that could easily be made by other means.

“The air pollution will have the greatest effect on the most vulnerable in society – the elderly and young people who have grown up with it accumulating their whole lives.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:39am Tue 15 Apr 14

Twickenham Bob says...

we need some roadside spot checks to measure the exhaust fumes being given off.

Over a decade you are looking at 770 odd avoidable deaths.
we need some roadside spot checks to measure the exhaust fumes being given off. Over a decade you are looking at 770 odd avoidable deaths. Twickenham Bob
  • Score: -5

12:45pm Tue 15 Apr 14

illynillyt says...

Bob - this is done on a regular basis.
See http://www.richmond.
gov.uk/air_pollution
Bob - this is done on a regular basis. See http://www.richmond. gov.uk/air_pollution illynillyt
  • Score: 3

12:50pm Tue 15 Apr 14

kingstonpaul says...

Problem is that when reports like this give a precise number, they confer a spurious reliability on the conclusions. Anyone with the most elementary grasp of statistics will tell you this is pure guesswork, the 'death from pollution' effect can't be quantified because there are so many other contributory factors.
I always say look at who is producing this rubbish. Typically it's a quango with a vested interest in talking-up these kind of scares so as to justify their continuing existence.
Problem is that when reports like this give a precise number, they confer a spurious reliability on the conclusions. Anyone with the most elementary grasp of statistics will tell you this is pure guesswork, the 'death from pollution' effect can't be quantified because there are so many other contributory factors. I always say look at who is producing this rubbish. Typically it's a quango with a vested interest in talking-up these kind of scares so as to justify their continuing existence. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 6

7:34pm Tue 15 Apr 14

metis says...

Ditto what Kingstonpaul said.
You can make statistics read whatever you want them to. Follow the money.
Ditto what Kingstonpaul said. You can make statistics read whatever you want them to. Follow the money. metis
  • Score: 5

9:03am Mon 21 Apr 14

lucullus says...

metis wrote:
Ditto what Kingstonpaul said.
You can make statistics read whatever you want them to. Follow the money.
And if we follow the money, Metis, where does that take us? Obviously if you think that the NHS and Public Health England don't have enough to worry about, then presumably you think they're making up spurious data on deaths from pollution. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but someone's taken a rigorous approach to assembling this data, and there's peer-reviewed science which demonstrates the adverse health effects of air-borne pollution. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it less deadly, does it?
[quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: Ditto what Kingstonpaul said. You can make statistics read whatever you want them to. Follow the money.[/p][/quote]And if we follow the money, Metis, where does that take us? Obviously if you think that the NHS and Public Health England don't have enough to worry about, then presumably you think they're making up spurious data on deaths from pollution. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but someone's taken a rigorous approach to assembling this data, and there's peer-reviewed science which demonstrates the adverse health effects of air-borne pollution. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it less deadly, does it? lucullus
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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