Low Emission Zone Led To Better Lung Size, Function Among London Children (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0185095470
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/08/22/0537243/low-emission-zone-led-to-better-lung-size-function-among-london-children
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/aug/18/ulez-better-lung-size-function-london-children
> Children's lungs grew bigger and stronger after the most polluting vehicles were restricted from entering London, a study has found. Examinations of London schoolchildren before and after the introduction of the city's ultra-low emission zone found a restoration of lung capacity that had been stunted by exposure to pollution... "Traffic pollution in cities damages children's health and development," said Chris Griffiths, a professor of primary care at the University of Oxford and Queen Mary University of London, and the study's joint senior author. "We provide the strongest evidence yet on how these harms can be prevented. Ambitious clean-air zones should be considered a priority for cities globally with traffic-related air pollution."
>
> Air pollution from traffic has stunted the development of children's lungs in London for decades. [3]Previous research found that by the age of eight or nine, children from the most polluted areas had 5-10% less lung capacity than their peers elsewhere. That impairment, which scientists said was the result of exposure to nitrogen dioxide, put them at increased risk as adults of developing respiratory diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular and metabolic disease, and premature death.
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/aug/18/ulez-better-lung-size-function-london-children
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266718302020
High Aspirations (Score:5, Insightful)
If only we had some sort of technology that would allow us to replace oil burning vehicles with a cleaner alternative.
You have every reason to ... (Score:2, Interesting)
---- suspect this to be entirely dishonest proaganda.
1) They are comparing pre-lockdown levels of traffic- when "working from home" was almost zero, with post-lockdown -- many people continue to work from home, assuming they still have a job. There are massively fewer cars on the road than there were. Less pollution is a good thing, but fewer jobs? not so much. (I am retired).
2) They viciously forced people to sell older cars prematurely rather than allow them to be replaced at the normally time (I nev
Re:You have every reason to ... (Score:4, Informative)
Regarding 1. In fact, post-pandemic traffici levels are as high as they were before the pandemic. In fact, traffic levels were already close to normal by October of 2020 in London, while the pandemic was still going on, in part due to people being less willing to take public transit. See [1]https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/changes-london-road-traffic-march-2020 [london.gov.uk]. and [2]https://fleetworld.co.uk/uk-road-traffic-back-at-pre-covid-levels/ [fleetworld.co.uk]. World-wide, we've seen pretty similar trends. [3]https://inrix.com/blog/2023-global-traffic-scorecard/ [inrix.com].
Re 2 and 3: Aside from that being highly exaggerated at what happened, it also isn't relevant to evaluating this study or making this study become "dishonest propaganda." If your claims are accurate, then they would be reasons to see there as being tradeoffs. But it wouldn't be a problem with this study or this study's claim. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make with point 4. Are you claiming that the reduction in lung issues is due to less use of boilers due to climate change? While climate change is having an impact, it isn't remotely large enough yes to have had that big an impact on heating that way. It isn't what is going on here.
[1] https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/changes-london-road-traffic-march-2020
[2] https://fleetworld.co.uk/uk-road-traffic-back-at-pre-covid-levels/
[3] https://inrix.com/blog/2023-global-traffic-scorecard/
Re: (Score:2)
Very little of what you are saying is true.
Firstly you're wrong about traffic levels. Secondly you're wrong that they have not accounted for that kind of change.
The rest of what you say is insane. No you don't have a right to kill people with your pollution due few because you're lazy and cheap. If you think that is viscous I don't know if there's anything approaching common decency and sense that will get through to you.
Better Lung Size?! (Score:4, Funny)
This is woke nonsense. These people should be happy with the lungs they've got. What's next, outlawing cars and mandating bicycles? Free healthcare for all?
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fret good sir. The right honourable Farage will bring us British lungs for British people in the best traditions of the empire and Victorians. You know, stunted.
Ban ICVs and subsidize nextgen batteries EVs (Score:2)
EVs are so much cheaper TCO and total externalities-wise too. ICVs are beholden to criminal fossil fuel cronies and use the sky as a sewer.
Pandemic bias. (Score:2)
> The team measured and monitored the children’s size and health at annual school visits from 2018 to 2022..
Uh, what school visits? You mean the empty schools a team was visiting during a global pandemic?
You sure those lung results weren't possibly skewed because the kids were actually at home for a good portion of this study, and not being exposed to anywhere near as many daily toxins before the pandemic hit?
A planet was reacting to a global pandemic in ways we hadn't seen in a century or more. Yes. Statistics are going to be affected by this.
Blank (Score:3)
From the department of no shit, Sherlock.
Re: (Score:3)
Here I thought breathing 1982 Los Angeles yellow-orange-brown smog put hair on your chest, but it was a carcinoma wild hair instead.
Re: Blank (Score:1)
Even to this day, it's best to avoid breathing the air in Los Angeles. Especially near freeways. And it's getting worse. The air is a bit cleaner down here in the south bay, but the whole LA metro area is pretty toxic overall, and will deduct a few years off of your natural lifespan.
Re: Blank (Score:1)
It's not just air pollution either -- cities have always been unhealthy to live in. It's actually only recently that cities have been growth centers, which is largely thanks to sanitation and flame resistant construction. But despite these, they're still measurably worse to live in, and this is just one data point. Air pollution itself isn't new either; even ancient Rome had some restrictions on burning for this very reason.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that but people have been fighting tooth and nail against it, and they often use the excuse that it won't work. I think they often convince themselves that's true.