Children's stunted lungs recover in London's ultra low emission zone, study finds
Scientists stunned by children's lung recovery in ultra low emission zone
A study of over 3,400 primary school children in London and Luton found that lung growth in London children, stunted by air pollution, accelerated after the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019, nearly catching up with their Luton peers within four years. The proportion of London children with clinically impaired lung capacity fell from 14% to 9%. Researchers called the speed of recovery 'stunning' and say it provides strong evidence that clean air zones can mitigate pollution's harm.
I was absolutely stunned when I first saw the results. The speed of catch up in lung capacity in the London group was surprising and impressive.
- thelastgallon
China has 350 million electric two-wheelers, 20 million EVs. China reduced air pollution from transportation by 80% in a decade.
Delhi: 442. Lahore: 334. Beijing: 16. These are the levels of PM 2.5, one of the principle measures for air pollution, on November 19. How China cleaned up its air pollution – and what that meant for the climate: https://theconversation.com/how-china-cleaned-up-its-air-pol...
- ecshafer
Anecdata I was living very close to a busy highway, and my young daughter was wheazing when she had a cold, we had to give her medicine via a nebulizer. When we moved out to the country more, far away from any major roads, these issues all disappeared within a couple months.
- graemep
A few things standout to me from the article.
1. London when the ULEZ was brought in was already a lot less polluted than historically.Are there gains from that? London was not that bad by global standards.
2. This was followed by the benefits of COVID lockdowns (not a phrase often used!) as pollution dropped much further.
3. Is this effect even across London? Suburbs vs centre, different types of housing etc.? I grew up a the edge of London and the difference in pollution was visible (i.e. you did not need instruments to see signs of it).
4. There was also a reduction in sales of diesel cars which had been heavily encouraged (because of lower CO₂ emissions) in previous decades.
5. As the articles notes, there have been a lot of other changes at roughly the same time. It only mentions one, but there have been significant lifestyle changes, so a lot of potential confounding variables.
- xyzzy123
I'm not really sure the thing they were trying to measure was measurable with the study design and level of funding they had. To be fair, the paper is fairly clear on the limitations and much better than the press release.
The study is supposed to measure how clearing up pollution in London improved children's lung function. The decrease in London was meaningful — NO2 fell about 22%. But particulates fell faster in Luton and NO2 in London is still roughly double Luton's. The gap is larger than the decrease.
By 2022 both cohorts get the same results on blow tests. But how does this happen if we believe that the study's dose-response model is true?
Put another way, if the change in London NO2 is so crucial, how come it doesn't matter that the absolute value is still double Luton's?
- bilekas
> strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood.
It's incredible this is even in debate. It's one of those intuitive things well known since the reduction of coal burning and smog during the industrial revolution in London?
- realty_geek
There is a chap in London who does some great work with researching and spreading awareness of air pollution:
https://clara.southlondonscientific.com/
He also runs this repo:
- satvikpendem
Using scientists being "stunned" should take the same amount of relevance as someone being "slammed" in article titles.
- stuaxo
I've needed my inhaler way less since the ULEZ came in.
Visiting London used to mean blowing your nose to black snot for a week afterwards, these days living in London it's pretty good.
- pcrh
Link to the original study below, free to access [0]. The key data appear to be this:
>At baseline, 184 (14%) of 1280 children with successful FEV1 measurement in London had a clinically low FEV1 (pre-bronchodilator FEV1 <80% of predicted value) compared with 126 (9%) of 1339 children in Luton (appendix p 8). At the end of the study, these values had dropped to 51 (9%) of 585 children in London and 41 (7%) of 606 children in Luton (appendix p 8).
So the proportion of children with low lung function dropped from 14% to 9% in London, and from 9% to 7% at the comparator site in Luton. It's not that much different, though any improvement is obviously welcome.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
- subygan
completely anecdotal. my earliest childhood memories in india were of asthma, sinusitis and constant cold. this was consistent until i was 26 and since then I've moved to the US and lived in New York with 0 days of sinusitis or breathing trouble. and i fallback to trouble breathing when i go home again.
even New York is so much more better than Bangalore or my small village in the middle of coffee farms