On 13/05/2019 21:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube —
how to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.Â* It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel
cars rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting
a quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact
that diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution
even if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by
some, none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do
manage to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with
an underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?

Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -Â* and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?

Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.

If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and
no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong.

When something looks like a duck...