London

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I doubt he even seriously believes his argument of 'immigration needs to reverse so kids can buy big houses in London that are now too expensive'

If nothing else he should revise his views and posting to note he feels immigration is no issue in the north and midlands because houses there are already cheap

there is no scope for debate if you assume I am lying.

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

Why do you care? You don't live here??

Do you only have a view about issues that directly personally affect you?
for the record I take a broad interest is a range of issues that I feel important, irrespective if I am personally directly affected.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

You don't think that maybe depressing house prices in London significantly, might have a negative impact on the broader economy there?

Clearly there will be some problems : but we have experience of previous falls in house prices that seem to have little impact on the 'real ' economy.

michaels

Of course living in London comes at a price in terms of life expectancy:

https://air.plumelabs.com/en/london

Particulates at 124 and no at 47 - worse than Bejing.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Of course living in London comes at a price in terms of life expectancy:

https://air.plumelabs.com/en/london

Particulates at 124 and no at 47 - worse than Bejing.

One day's data is just noise.

lisyloo

michaels wrote: »

Of course living in London comes at a price in terms of life expectancy:

https://air.plumelabs.com/en/london

Particulates at 124 and no at 47 - worse than Bejing.

Do you have any evidence that life expectancy is lower rather than just pollution is higher?
There are many factors that go into life expectancy and generally wealthier places in the uk do better than poorer ones.

On a personal level I'm doing more exercise (walking and cycling) and eating better food (as there are places that do lovely salad boxes and lovely markets) although I recognise pollution is worse when I'm cycling outdoors.
I actually think overall that I'm living more healthily in London than I was in the burbs.

Generali

lisyloo wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that life expectancy is lower rather than just pollution is higher?
There are many factors that go into life expectancy and generally wealthier places in the uk do better than poorer ones.

On a personal level I'm doing more exercise (walking and cycling) and eating better food (as there are places that do lovely salad boxes and lovely markets) although I recognise pollution is worse when I'm cycling outdoors.
I actually think overall that I'm living more healthily in London than I was in the burbs.

I think there might have been some jest in michaels' post.

I did a quick antrobus which tells me that life expectancy in Beijing and London is about the same. The part of that life that is healthy IIRC is longer in London than Beijing but The Party is really starting to crack down on pollution. Even Sinopec bosses are going to gaol. One exec got 20 years and the Chairman is under investigation for pollution.

Times in Beijing are a-changing.

antrobus

lisyloo wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that life expectancy is lower rather than just pollution is higher?
There are many factors that go into life expectancy and generally wealthier places in the uk do better than poorer ones.......

London seems to do quite well in the regional life expectancy stakes. Especially if you are male and live in Kensington and Chelsea.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/lifeexpectancyatbirthandatage65bylocalareasinenglandandwales/2015-11-04

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

Of course living in London comes at a price in terms of life expectancy:

https://air.plumelabs.com/en/london

Particulates at 124 and no at 47 - worse than Bejing.

The issue about pollution may carry just as much impact on the legal front.

A friend who looks at this for the compensation industry says there is good evidence to show that this problem was well known even when the growth in diesel cars was being encouraged throughout much of the last couple of decades.

Could this lead to claims for ill health? It would be a large area of cost if it did.

I'm not sure it's a problem in all of London though.

I believe Wood Green is okay, purely because the word "wood" is healthy, and who can argue with "green"?

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

The issue about pollution may carry just as much impact on the legal front.

A friend who looks at this for the compensation industry says there is good evidence to show that this problem was well known even when the growth in diesel cars was being encouraged throughout much of the last couple of decades.

Could this lead to claims for ill health? It would be a large area of cost if it did.

I'm not sure it's a problem in all of London though.

I believe Wood Green is okay, purely because the word "wood" is healthy, and who can argue with "green"?

the evidence about the harmful effect of diesel particle has been known for 30 or more years.
The reason that the EU prime minsters et al encouraged diesel against all the scientific evidence, was their wish to strut on the world stage of the 'global warming' band wagon at that time.

The situation in Wood Green, is that they don't measure pollution there, as they are frightened that the operatives may sue then under H&S legislation for wilfully endangering their lives.