Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Drs against Diesel : A subsidy mafia Front

@Tomo first ever mention of Doctors against diesel was on midnight news last night.
- Suspecting a subsidy mafia front I checked Google and Twitter .. Zero
First tweet was mine 13 hours ago
Then the PR team hit the BBC Breakfast TV and then 5Live
Twitter search now

Oops I meant to put a question mark at the end of the title ?

Dec 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The 3rd tweet was a cutom 5-Live graphic as if BBC are part of the campaign
The actual campaign launched out of 5 hours ago
- Then the next tweet came 2 hours later as BBC launched a custom page, which they have since stealth edited (as is their habit)

Dec 10, 2016 at 3:11 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

It was followed by photo of demo crowd wearing white coats outside Parliament cos everyone wearing a white coat is a doctor.
Somone thinks same.
"More @BBCNews #fakenews doctors against diesel! pretend doctors wearing masks,another fake organised movement. #actors"

Dec 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Bottom line is that diesel isn't a big killer
Only a tiny fraction of world life days lost in the world can be extrapolated to it, it appears on no death certificates
Yet indoor air pollution like indoor cooking over smokey Indian fires impact magnitudes more impacting like 4 million people in there youth , not last few weeks of old age.
So in saving lives that is where low fruit lies.

Prof Anthony Frew debunked Sadiq Khans statements last week on BBC More or Less*

and there is a good Sense About Science page, where he explains focusing on UK smoking is far more important.

* He questions robustness of 40,000 deaths/year claim 10,000 in London.
There is am increased risk of dying in certain US cities if there is a slightly higher level of certain particulates.
All this figs are estimates
That 6% fig is approximate it could be zero it could be 12%
He rubbished the Greenpeace claim that living in London is equivalent to smoking 15 cigs/day

Dec 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

That Sense about Sience comment on 40K fdeath claim in Feb 2016

Prof. Anthony Frew, Professor of Allergy & Respiratory Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, said:

“While this report is interesting, its findings have to be seen in the context that on average we live longer, healthier lives than we did in previous generations, and that much of this is due to the industrial improvements that cause the pollution. Living has never been risk-free and we make compromises all the time between our short-term comfort and long-term health. Ultimately you have to ask the question, how much would you have to change things to achieve a defined improvement, and what would it cost – if the number of lives or days that can be saved is small and everyone would have to stop using cars to achieve this, then clearly it isn’t going to happen. In other words we have to trade off the cost and inconvenience of actions against the size and value of any proposed health benefit. I feel the report was very light on that aspect.”
“Furthermore, the “deaths caused by air pollution” are generally considered to be deaths that are brought forward, rather than deaths that would not have happened. In other words these may be people who are about to die from lung or heart disease who, as a result of an air pollution episode die a few days (or weeks) earlier than they would otherwise have died. There is some evidence that a few deaths do happen due to cardiac rhythm events that are truly premature –in other words, without the air pollution they might not have happened for several years – but this is hard to prove. Additionally, the indoor pollution data cited here is almost entirely based on studies of indoor tobacco smoke, which is clearly a health hazard. In its conclusions the report tends to conflate this with other potential risks (for which there is little evidence) into a general statement that thousands of lives are being blighted by other forms of indoor air pollution, when the focus should really be on reducing tobacco smoking.”

Dec 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Now MP tweeted that Diesel pollution deaths are larger than RTAs

That is the fallacy of comparing apples with oranges.
RTA actually appears on death certificate s.
Road air pollution does not, rather it is a dodgy extrapolation from life length observed in some US polluted cities vs cleaner ones.

An RTA involving a death of 1 and injury of another person removes life days in 2 ways.
Due to death of a 20year old , removing 60 years of her life, and say a 5 year reduced lifespan of her 20 year old friend.

Whereas diesel nox deaths are inferred from thousands of people dying a few weeks earlier than full life expectancy.

Stop RTAs an you save 20 year olds lives.
Stopping diesel would not add such obvious benefits.

To make a proper comparison you'd have to consider : In London over next 100 years how many life days would be lost to the 2 causes.
It would be like 20,000 people losing half their lives vs 10mm dying a few weeks earlier than full lifespan.

Spend your cash in India and Africa and you will save air pollution lives of people who are quite young.

Dec 10, 2016 at 4:33 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Bottomline $$ spent on gas stoves for Indians save more LifeDays
than $$ spent on electricTaxi subsidies for Londoners
#VirtueSignalling + #EVsubsidy mafia

Dec 10, 2016 at 5:01 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen, I am a country bumpkin, not a townie, and do not go into London unless I have to. As a sometime yottie, I have some hands-on practical experience of diesel engines.

For these new claims to be validated, presumably there would be an increase in deaths/disease amongst those people who have sat behind diesel engines for most of their working lives, the bus and taxi drivers, driving the buses and taxis most likely to behind the bus or taxi in front.

Traditional London Taxis and Routemaster buses never had the most sophisticated diesel engines, with emission controls, and filters on the ventilation systems.

If there modern diesels are producing more problems, then all buses, taxis, lorries etc, will need to be banned, and GPs in London will need to walk, or use bicycles to travel to all their patients who would have used a bus.

It could be quite difficult for MPs flipping from one home of tax convenience to their mistresses, if they cannot claim for taxi fares.

Dec 10, 2016 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So your renewable back-up is what?

Dec 10, 2016 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

The other side of particulate pollution is the increased use of wood burning stoves in the UK. There are over a million woodburners installed now and annual sales are in excess 150K, last data I saw.

I think that Paris rescinded a ban on wood for heating in the city because of protests by people whose heating was solely wood.

This time of year whilst cycling round rural Limousin on a still frosty morning the air is permeated with the smell of wood smoke, you can see the haze hanging in valleys.

But steps are being taken to improve the air quality by installing electric car charging points round the region.I stopped to have a drink and Tunnocks Caramel wafer (other chocolate biscuits and energy bars are available) at Millac in the Vienne (population 550) this morning, they have two charging points, but not much else of interest

Dec 10, 2016 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

I know what we are dealing with here.

This is Public Health

They are either incompetent medics (who cannot be trusted in a clinical environment) or a particularly virulent breed of self serving bureaucrat - their stock in trade is inveigling themselves into well remunerated positions between conjured up uninvited visitations from the Grim Reaper and the poor defenseless ignorant peasants.

They routinely commission at considerable public expense - "research" - which all too often turns out to be an exercise in obfuscating any inconvenient actual observations and reams of verbiage and pictures designed to scare and flummox the peasants - on the way to their desired outcome.

They are scum.

The mention of tobacco is a wife beating / loaded language device - we are talking about air pollution and when challenged about that ... shazzam! out comes the tobacco hobgoblin (y'all remember who Naomi Oreskes hob-nobs with?)

I cannot begin to elaborate my contempt for these people. They hide inside our public bodies and manipulate massively to maintain their sinecures.

As I've said before - Public Health people so exasperated the medics in the NHS that PH was expelled to feed on local government where their corruption and abject incompetence was more in tune with the pervading ethos.

Air pollution ? bluidy Oxygen larceny morelike.

In the case of real problems do not expect these people to be of any use at all - they'll have buggered off with anything likely to save their own skins.

Dec 10, 2016 at 7:38 PM | Registered Commentertomo

I'd add that Anthony Frew and others make the serious mistake of being reasonable and using moderate language with PH-ers. You do that and you've lost.

The tactics deployed are incredibly similar to those deployed by climate alarmists.

As I've said here before - the dodgy motivation and the dishonest tactics deployed by many Public Health practitioners / academics are an open secret inside the game - but they close ranks when challenged from the outside.... There is simply too much at stake to step out of line and expose the faked research and worse that pervades the subject.

Dec 10, 2016 at 8:00 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Living has never been risk-free…
Wow! Such truths being unveiled! Who would’ve thunk it, eh?

However, the BBC report on Breakfast did include the passage “…less carbon dioxide, which is bad for the environment…” which, as anyone with half a brain knows, is fundamentally stupid.

Dec 10, 2016 at 8:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

London ambulances run on diesel
..... Since it's inconvenient if they run out of charge on the way.

Dec 10, 2016 at 10:15 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

What is unacceptable about this campaign is that there are cities where most all people carrying vehicles are LPG (Tokyo and Hong Kong come to mind) but I am seeing no evidence - which should be proffered - about the efficacy of that cleaner fuel in those dense urban environments.

I'm not defending diesels - merely wondering why actual evidence isn't being offered up.

It might be completely off beam but I did see some stuff maybe year or so back where analysis of "soot" in London indicated that a significant proportion of carbon dust was likely from tyres ...

Actually characterizing the problem before demanding remedies would be a start - what we seem to be seeing here is the arrogance of a motley crew of experts who deem the people too stupid to understand the evidence.

A crowd of white coats wearing stethoscopes and waving placards outside Parliament is causing my BS detector to start beeping a bit...

There is no doubt that photochemical smogs and dirty air are not good - every city has a different microclimate which will dictate how pollution manifests itself and hence dictate how to effectively mitigate identified, real physical risks. The last nasty smog episode I saw in the UK drifted over from Europe.

I'd hope that as this progresses we will get to see some hard evidence from what superficially looks like a bunch of rent seekers and allied to the anti industry crowd.

SHUT DOWN The Underground

Dec 11, 2016 at 2:04 AM | Registered Commentertomo

I have to put my hand up - yes I launched Doctors against Diesel. I have done air pollution research with children now for 15 years - and published the link between diesel soot in Leicester children's airway cells and lower lung function (in the New England Journal of Medicine) - and I have just published in the Lancet a cook stove intervention trial in Malawi (it did not work). Diesel I'm afraid is a low hanging fruit - it disproportionately contributes to PM and NO2 in London. Not the complete answer for sure - but if we can't deal with this major emission source - then there is little hope of protecting children's health by any other interventions. My conflicts - I'm paid by my University and NHS -and treat children with the most severe asthma. Just thought you would like to know.

Dec 22, 2016 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJon Grigg

Welcome Jon ... We have indeed being discussing the Malawi study today.
eg its robustness, why are people not cooking outside there ? etc.

When it comes to London I am concerned that clean air concerns will be used as a vehicle by green subsidy merchants and that costs of subsidies and consequences will not be the cost effective way of saving life days (QALDs)

Dec 22, 2016 at 7:44 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Quoting from Jonathon Grigg's homepage

Professor of Paediatric Respiratory and Environmental Medicine @ Queen Mary
- the leading UK paediatrician in the effects of air pollution.
- lead author of the Royal College of Physicians’ Report on the long-term effects
- His research has identified the mechanisms whereby inhalation of particles increases vulnerability to bacterial infection.

Dec 22, 2016 at 8:03 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Jon it would be great if you or someone can spare the time to quickly answer our questions. I believe that often we'll be the first ones to ask them and they'll come up later at funding inquiries.

Q1. What about dope smokers ?
What would be the number of life days lost for the average regular joint smoker ?
(Cos it seems to me that you could spend resources cleaning street smoke yet that might not make much difference to his lifespan)

Q2 Don't you think you are in danger of rushing into things ?
eg The Malawi study is large, but I thought in complex fields with many factors: one study in one location is just not robust enough to make policy decisions on.
(Like are weaker more vulnerable children dying of something else before they get pneumonia ?)

Q3. For London do we have a £ figure for the cost of saving each life day/year by preventative measures ?
(That might seem like a dumb question but policies do have a financial cos and I'm not going to spend £2K to live a couple of momths longer)

Dec 22, 2016 at 8:32 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Doctors Against Diesel – Mission Statement
by Alice Munro | Dec 14

"Recent *modelling* found that nearly 40 per cent of all NOx emissions and PM10 pollution within London comes from diesel vehicles"
"We feel that the use of diesel fuel should be banned in our urban areas and progressively phased out elsewhere. "
No actual numbers are quoted.

Dec 22, 2016 at 9:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Jon Grigg, thank you for posting here.

Surely those most likely to suffer from diesel emissions from London's vehicles, would be the bus and taxi drivers, permanently stuck behind the one in front? London's Buses and Taxis have never had sophisticated fresh air filtration systems for drivers or passengers, partly because doors and windows were never sealed shut, assuming they existed at all.

I am not doubting that those living in cities such as London do breathe in more exhaust fumes than country bumpkins, but I am not sure what you have actually proved or demonstrated, other than the media's appetite for scare stories.

Dec 23, 2016 at 1:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Pity that Grigg didn't come back.
We all welcome open debate in this world of deceit and PR.

Even though I have no evidence of basic collusion with EV subsidy mafia; experience teaches me that quickly such campaigns become absorbed by susidy interests and do become such a front.

It's.still suspicious to me that the week before EV pushers had been doing PRabout London restricting diesels and are very successful in getting stuff into the Times

Jan 4, 2017 at 12:40 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

It seems easy to say
..'stuff costs and proper proof, diesel's a hazard take it out of the equation'

Consider a London diesel ambulance, yes you could take 2 off the road and replace them with 1 EV ambulance for the same budget. But then you'd have to factor in the number of life days lost due to having only 1 ambulance instead of 2.
Same for police, fire and other emergency vehicles.'

Jan 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I do find things fishy about Grigg's campaign.
#1 For Malawi he says 'ah the science is NOT settled. Our new data contradicts cooking stove benefits'
Yet for London he says 'the science is settled no time for debate , act now'

#2 There seems no room in his thinking for improving diesel.
Instead of remaining true to the fact its particular particulates and NoX getting into peoples lungs ..he seems fixated on diesel.

** I like to hear his take on Ad Blue its touted as a solution for diesel NoX emissions what if a similar fix is developed for those particular pariculates ?
... Diesels would have been banned for nothing.

#3 @Golf pointed out that although NoX can travel to reach lungs, particulates almost entirely affect lungs within feet of the road. So there should be robust evidence of say damage to taxi drivers health.. But none has been put forward.. Otherwise H&S standards would mean they are issued with special breathing systems for work.

Jan 4, 2017 at 12:58 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Todays papers carry PR from Asthma UK
Claiming asthma suffers are being let down by comparatively simple measure of failing to enforce proper health practices like annual inhaler checks.

So wgy is Doctors Against Diesels investing in something difficult like banning diesels.
...instead of first doing something easy like enforcing existing asthma care measures ?

Millions of UK asthma sufferers 'not receiving basic levels of care'
Survey by Asthma UK finds two-thirds of patients not being given fundamental care that is needed to manage condition
...sorry that's Gua
rdian link

Jan 4, 2017 at 1:12 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen