Sat, 08
32 °C
Sun, 09
33 °C
Mon, 10
31 °C

Council taking steps to improve air quality in Slough

Council taking steps to improve air quality in Slough

Steps the council is taking to improve air quality in Slough were reported to councillors last week.

A report was presented to the health scrutiny panel following members' concerns that the levels of pollution were harming residents.

It said the main sources of air pollution in Slough were caused by transport and that the latest figures from 2018 showed that 6.5 per cent of all cause adult mortality in the town was attributed to air pollution. This equated to around 50 to 60 people in Slough and was higher than the national and South-East average.

Public health officer Tim Howells said the borough subscribes to a service called AirTEXT which predicts air quality and emissions across London and the surrounding boroughs and delivers air quality alerts by SMS.

He said: “It becomes a particular issue when it goes above moderate but what AirTEXT allows us to do is keep track of it and give that data to our colleagues in primary and secondary care.”

Sophia Norfolk from the environmental quality team also gave an update on the council’s low emissions strategy. She said the council continuously monitors air quality at six locations and has been awarded funding by Defra to monitor air quality outside four schools: Claycots Primary School; Cippenham Primary School; Penn Wood Primary School; and Pippins Primary School.

The project was due to run from June until November but has been pushed back due to the coronavirus crisis into next year with data being fed back to schools.

The council will also consider implementing a clean air zone, which would have the same function as London’s ultra low emission zone.

This would focus on three hotspots in the borough: Brands Hill gyratory; junction 6 of the M4 leading to Tuns Lane; and A4 Bath Road leading to Wellington Street.

A feasibility study is due to take place soon.

Leave your comment

Share your opinions on

Characters left: 1500

comment

  • Stranger

    00:34, 05 July 2020

    What they do is, they work out that air pollution shaves 3 days of life expectancy from the average lifespan of someone who lives in an area with a higher particulate matter than another. They then draw the conclusion that one thing (the particulate matter) causes the other (3 days' less life expectancy), while assuming that everyone is too stupid to see that there might be other causes why people in Slough live 3 days less than people in Chipping Norton (for example, long working hours, bad living conditions, much lower incomes, etc.) Knowing that that 3 days' less life expectancy sounds undramatic, they then multiply 3 days by however many people live in a town, e.g. 200,000. Therefore, say, 600,000 days of life expectancy lost! Average lifespan is 80 years,so divide 600,000 by 365 and you get 1644 years. 1644 divided by 80 is 20. So 20 lives are lost because of deadly air pollution every year! We'd better shut all the roads down then... You see, that's how they pull the wool over everyone's eyes. The worst thing is, they don't teach kids in school basic logic and causation (and how it differs from correlation), and then these "nudge" units peddle the idea that this is all a done deal and there's nothing the grown-ups can do about it. In fact, it's all a tissue of lies. There's nothing there.

    Reply

    Report

    • be_ transparent

      12:59, 05 July 2020

      Of course, if they used the same fudge factor idea to come up with deaths attributable to fast food outlets in Slough we would have a global health emergency ! Or how about deaths attributable to processed foods in supermarkets, or deaths caused by crossing roads or riding bicycles .... Of course, they choose which “emergency” to create through statistics, what they don’t do is full root cause analysis of all Slough deaths and act on that ....

      Reply

      Report

  • be_ transparent

    20:57, 04 July 2020

    Unfortunately this article is misleading. There was a lot more in the councils report that isn't mentioned. The 6.5% estimate attributed to adult cause mortality.... the report then goes on to say “although these numbers are approximate because deaths tend to be caused by multiple factors.” Yes, news just in - no-one dies in Slough with air pollution on their death certificate. And what does Public Health England have to say about this data in the source report "Estimating Local Mortality Burdens associated with Particulate Air Pollution” ? pg.6 Section 2.2.2 para 2 “Nonetheless, COMEAP stressed that a calculated figure of ‘attributable deaths’ does not represent the number of individuals whose length of life has been shortened by air pollution. “ What other facts were listed in the councils report that have been missed off this article that people might find interesting ? Levels of particulate matter in Slough meet the governments Air Quality Objectives. Only 13% of PM2.5 pollution comes from transport. Main factors influencing particulate matter in Slough are from the M4,Heathrow Airport and London - none of which are going to change ! We should try to improve air quality in Slough but unfortunately it seems that Slough Council are unwilling or unable to be pragmatic or sensible about measures. They need to get out a bit and understand the real anger out there with their recent idiotic behaviour.

    Reply

    Report

Editor's Picks

Most read

Top Ten Articles