Air quality

[[b]quote="cyfrifia"]
Not polluting the atmosphere in the first place is a common sense idea. Common sense of course is rare. The huge toxic fires we have so many of in the north of England are
(1) Extremely toxic, being of plastics, tyres, electronics, chemicals, paint, oil etc.
and
(2) Avoidable. Simple (common sense) procedures and precautions could cut the number and scale of them.
(3) Expensive. We effectively burn our wealth, breathe in the fumes and cost the health service with our cancers. Why do we carry on doing it? Because we don't know how to stop.
[/quote]

The fires we have in the 'North of England' are not that large in the global scheme of things.

Regarding not polluting in the first place:

When the 'developed' world is built on conspicuous consumption of energy and resource, it is very hard to tell countries less developed that they cannot have what we enjoy. Are we going to lead by example and start living more simply?

Think well before you answer!

The problem for Delhi is sheer volume of smoke and smog produced by a huge population.

"widespread use of festival fireworks, the burning of rubbish by the city's poor, plus farm waste from around the city, vehicular emissions and construction dust, all contribute to the city's thick "pea-soup" fogs."

Our air pollution in Greater Manchester area is not so much the volume of smoke as the intense toxicity of the 'accidental' fires we have regularly.

The experimental Delhi idea of a thermal chimmney effect, similar to the updraft of hot air above a candle flame will rely on running jet engines pointing upwards continuously for a long time to establish such an updraft.

The Delhi 'solution' wouldn't easily apply to the sporadic toxic fires we have that generally burn for a day or two. The UK needs a different solution, - prevention; not  stacking toxic 'waste' in such big piles, limiting the size of piles of scrap cars, plastic for recycling et., that, and some precautions, would make fires less likely, less intense, easier to extinguish.

P.S. Pollution is inevitable, but like everything else in industry, needs safe procedures to manage. There is no economic or social benefit from huge accidental toxic fires. The question of telling other countries what to do does not arise, except in your post, johnb. We are, by the way the cookie has crumbled, a 'leading' nation to some extent, to meet that we should perhaps do whatever needs doing intelligently and humanely. No need to live in the woods and whittle spoons.

The new technologies for all these 'ills' are what will bounce many of these Third World nations ahead of the game IF they concentrate on where WE left off. It makes no sense either economically or socially to FOLLOW in our footsteps. It is to be hoped they have learned from our mistakes (all be them accidental). We should also be thrashing the treasury and government to do the same (but better) and concentrating on 'tomorrows' requirements whenever and wherever possible. That's where the new 'economy's' will be born from. Building ships, digging coal, melting ore, are all yesterday's jam and bread and are not needed for anyone's future. Especially when they can be done far cheaper by others if at all required. As regards re-cycling and toxic dumps etc the government is as always years behind with the appropriate legislation to control them properly and make sure the sanctions for breaches prohibit lackadaisical management. Until THAT is done the problem will persist.

Quite so. There is acceptance of air pollution, as Johnb says "The fires we have in the 'North of England' are not that large in the global scheme of things."

Generally true, but still enough to be worth thinking about, the types of fire are of plastics and chemicals in densely populated areas with already problematic levels of air pollution.

Pubic awareness may change, if air pollution, it's effects on health and environment become more widely understood.

When we see a parent standing chatting, holding a child in a pushchair close to the exhaust of a parked car with the engine ticking over, the level of public unawareness is obvious.

What will come first, regulation to limit 'accidental' toxic fires, or, public awareness of, and discontent with, air pollution levels?

The E.U. 'forced' us to clean up rivers and coastal waters, but they may not be there to impose clean air on us, perhaps we need to sort that out ourselves? Will Rochdale lead the way? Perhaps not.

You are correct about 'impositions' on fouling - but I would have preferred such laws to have been made here not by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere. The trouble with 'unfettered impositions' is where one stops before the 'impositions' become 'chains'. I barely trust my own - I certainly do not trust 'outsiders'.

I would imagine that regulation will come soon regarding recycling storage etc. How effective it will be is quite another thing.

Quite. Another thing.

Maple Mill in Oldham is burning now, (again). A huge blaze, a cotton milll. Floor timbers of those mills are generally soaked in oil from the looms, so maybe not good smoke to be breathing.

A massive mill fire, still burning today. Fairly normal you might say, which is the point. We accept massive mill fires as part of the normal run of things, and by extention, other, more toxic fires as an unremarkable part of the 'northern way of life' too.

Airplane pilots have no problem locating Manchester, they just look for the 'ring of fires'.

Now you are trying to 'mess' with 'nature'. The 'stock-taking' of cotton mills has been part of the industrial history of Lancashire since the late 1950's and is part of our heritage. First you transfer the machinery to India having fired all the workers. Then you lease out parts of the mill for sufficient to keep paying the overheads. Then you try and sell it. Having failed you employ a industrial accountant (otherwise known as a pyromaniac) who removes the problem by a large insurance claim. Simple.

Now why would you want to destroy a very lucrative industry? Ahhh - I remember it well -.

The 'burn the mill' insurance scam is a fairly well known part of the culture of the northern ex-mill towns.

However, there is a fine but important distinction to make between that tradition and modern toxic fires.

Indeed. You mean profit before pollution. I couldn't agree more. I'll drink to that as I can afford to do so from my pyrotechnic claims.

Ay lass. Whenever has public safety come before profits? And the dance goes on.

As I carefully sorted out the metal, plastics and paper for recycling, I had a feeling like I was preparing kindling. Storm barbara and winter weather generally should limit the toxic recycling fires for a while.

Nothing else does. 

Absolutely. Gale force winds will fuel the fires out of existence with a few massive billows of rain sodden oxygen and you can look forward to a cleaner existence for a week or so. Life - isn't it wonderful. Merry Christmas.xxxxx

Liverpool has a cumulation of air problems. Recent huge recycling fires of toxic materials. Expansion of docks, Liverpool 2 project now opening means a hundred percent increase in heavy lorries along Liverpool roads which run through residential areas.

This report,  http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/clampdown-firm-producing-toxic-smog-12517889
We may think burning clothes is organic so to speak, but clothes now are made of synthetics, plastics toxic when burned at ordinary fire temperatures.

With toxic smog now a global health problem, from Mongolia to Europe, masses of smog visible from space, survival technology and methods will become essential for those living in the worst areas. The Japanese wear facemasks, but, how effective is that?

Governments and a diminution of fossil fuel burning cannot be laid constructively or easily alongside each other in the same sentence. The removal of Europe's heavy industry to reduce smog levels etc could only have been a temporary measure in terms of life-spans as the increase in population and their needs outweigh those benefits gained and it's back to square one. (Not to mention that smog is a world-wide problem with the upsurge of the Third World and only exacerbates the whole problem). Fossil fuels and all other types of 'burnings' will have to be savagely reduced before steps can be taken to remove the problems which now beset us. And then you have - - - 'MAN'.

Best thing is to be careful where you live. The noise, vibration and pollution from ever more and bigger lorries is reducing the value of houses near main roads in Liverpool.
Facemask air filters will remove bigger dust particles from polluted air, but not the very fine dust, which does the damage.

It will be next century before there are any final good outcomes. It will take new technologies to take over the old. History will look back and call the 17th - 20th centuries the 'Grey Ages' or something along those lines. Nobody will care and everybody will call us fools not understanding that nothing is gained without other things lost (in this case many millions of premature deaths). But the new dawn will bring with it it's own problems - possibly new viruses and bacteria, meteor and comet dangers, population explosions and lack of resources. It's a never-ending circle of pluses and gains as the species grips onto life and the planet slowly dies. Our time may even yet be construed as the 'good times' of man's history - who knows.

Todays' massive plastics recycling fire is in Stoke-on-Trent, with a plume of toxic smoke.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-38873049

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/police-inquiry-are-these-two-major-fires-in-milton-and-brindley-ford-linked/story-30115831-detail/story.html

I would not like to discourage the recycling of plastics, which is essential to prevent the oceans becoming a dead soup of plastic particles etc., but as I carefully sort the types of plastic to recycle, the thought that those plastics may well be burned en masse to pollute the atmosphere is - demotivating.

Thus proving that we cannot win. Plastics will have to be phased out as soon as possible before the problem of plastic pollutions will be solved. Packagings are becoming bio-degradable but will take time for 'uplift' across the markets. Could be 10 years or more. Till then - hold yer breath.

Andy Burnham tried to hold his breath for a while, but eventually fell to the ground coughing and spluttering, holding his throat, thrashing about, twitching his legs, and rather blue in the face, but managed to croak out:-

"Polluted air is an invisible killer and Greater Manchester needs a wake-up call to what is a growing public health emergency. If I am elected in May, I will immediately initiate a major new drive to clean up our filthy air."

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/108099/andy-burnham-pledges-major-drive-to-clean-up-greater-manchesters-filthy-air

Good luck with that one then. First remove all the traffic - oops - not possible. Secondly remove all the heavy industries - oops - not possible. Stop the planes from flying over the city and environs - oops - sorry again - not possible. It's bullshit whilst Rome burns.

Yes, rattle and spin as usual. There can be small improvements made, mainly stop having huge toxic fires of 're-cycled' plastics would be useful.

Weeding with a cattle prod. Guess who wins.

Who will win? The E.U. threatens legal action against the UK for our rapidly worsening air pollution. Will brexit mean we can ignore them and bask in our own filthy gases?

Absolutely - if we so wish. The EU talks a lot about human rights and freedoms but then defines what those rights and freedoms should be - naturally for the intent of the good of all. And therein lies the nub of the matter. When does the good of all impinge on the rights of the few and should those 'rights' be handed down by a very, very few unelected officials given that no one knows what lies behind their 'dictates' and that they cannot be 'overruled'.

We had clean air acts long before the rest of Europe and strove to 'clean-up' our act long before the EU. And therein lies the rub -. Do we need yet another tier of bureaucracy, at great expense, to tell us what we have already known long before their socially-engineered inception. Methinks not. I have some experience of organisational chaos brought about by a constant plethora of 'new brooms'. It leads to the demise of all.

That big fire of recycled plastic at stokeontrent was totally illegal and probably arson
http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2017-02-08/recycling-plant-fire-started-deliberately/

No need for organisational chaos and new brooms, just enforcing existing laws against choking people to death with toxic smoke would be a big improvement.