Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Britain's Dirty Cities More Dangerous Than an A-bomb

By Thair Shaikh, The Independent. Posted April 7, 2007.


Air pollution in major cities is potentially more damaging to health than being exposed to the radioactive fallout of an atomic bomb, according to a new scientific report.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Thair Shaikh

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Air pollution in major cities is potentially more damaging to health than being exposed to the radioactive fallout of an atomic bomb, according to a report published this week.

The study suggests that high levels of urban air pollution cut life expectancy by more than the radiation exposure of emergency workers sent into the 19-mile exclusion zone around the Chernobyl disaster.

Millions of people were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation when the former Soviet nuclear power plant in what is now the Ukraine exploded on 26 April 1986. But the latest findings suggest that the consequences of radiation exposure suffered by survivors of the incident, or the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan by the US in 1945, may be less damaging than previously thought.

Although 30 people died immediately in the two explosions at Chernobyl and up to 16,000 deaths have been linked to the radiation plume that spread across Europe, the research found that moving from Inverness to London could have a worse effect on your health than moving to Chernobyl.

The study follows a report last month from The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which said air pollution was responsible for 24,000 premature deaths in Britain every year. Sir John Lawton, chairman of the commission, said the Government had consistently failed to tackle rising levels of chemicals in the atmosphere of cities.

Other findings showed that women living in areas of higher pollution were at greater risk of heart disease and death, while children living within 500 metres of motorways suffered more permanent lung damage and lower life expectancy, probably because of their greater exposure to pollutants in vehicle fumes.

Jim Smith, a scientist at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, who carried out the research, assessed the health risks faced by those at Chernobyl directly after the explosion and those who set up home in the exclusion zone afterwards. He compared them with air pollution, obesity and passive and active smoking.

He concluded the Chernobyl group absorbed radiation equivalent to more than the amount emitted during 1,200 chest x-rays, which was likely to cause one extra death in a hundred by increasing the risk of cancer.

The health risks associated with air pollution and passive smoking appear more severe. Pollution in central London increased mortality due to heart disease by 2.8 per cent compared with Inverness, Britain's least polluted city, while living with a smoker increases mortality by 1.7 per cent, the study found.

Writing in the journal BMC Public Health, Dr Smith said: "It is well known that radiation can potentially cause fatal cancers in people, even at relatively low doses. But our understandable fear of radiation needs to be placed in the context of other risks.

"The immediate effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs led to approximately 210,000 deaths. However, radiation exposures experienced by the most exposed group of survivors led to an average loss of life expectancy significantly lower than that caused by severe obesity or active smoking."

However, Dr Smith said his calculations were limited by the fact that they excluded wider social and lifestyle factors, which could have an impact on health.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: united kingdom, public health, radioactive, climate

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You can see it in the sickly faces of the British
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 7, 2007 1:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always notice it when I come to the UK: how supremely unhealthy people look for a country that claims to be the fifth richest in the world. To a man and woman, they look burned out, pasty, blobby, their faces pinched by malnutrition of the sort you get from eating crap food (not because there is a lack of good food in the UK, which there is plenty).

What is even worse than these arrogant and unhealthy people, is there BS over how greener and holier they are to North Americans, when clearly they aren't.

Think of England and think of a stale fart. That is basically the national odour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» holier than thou??? Posted by: dr_bognus
» Troll much? Posted by: kazz67
London is a Dumb
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 7, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Central London is a dumb but as far as I know Britain is NOT LONDON.

Travel across Britain and then you would find that the pollution varies. Major cities like London, Manchester etc are the worst areas.

FYI: I am a Londoner

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What happened?
Posted by: willymack on Apr 7, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I visited the UK in 1968. At that time, London had clean air and salmon had been seen swimming up the Thames for the first time in 200 years. All this was due to the Clean Air and Water Act of 1956. Have some neocon bastards managed to reverse things as they have here? Does anyone out there know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What happened? Posted by: andyc
» RE: What happened? Posted by: rivka_m
» RE: What happened? Posted by: ritasingh
How to change
Posted by: Melvin on Apr 8, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can still remember the "killer" smogs of he UK; but I am going back about 40 years. I left the UK some thirty years ago & now live at the other end of the spectrum; Canada.
Don't kid yourself or become "patriotic" about pollution. When I visit Vancouver B.C from Vancouver Island & look back from the ferry boat I see a brown haze over the city that is not obvious whilst downtown. All cities I have visited are polluted; be it Seattle or Barcelona. The real question is how do we change things?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public right to know and the EU.
Posted by: ritasingh on Apr 8, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work in environmental policy in the US and it really chapps me when Europeans are shocked by this stuff. The EU has NO public right to know about air pollution at industrial facilities. You could have a plant that emitted a ton of Mercury a year next to your back yard and as a citizen or environmental group you have no right to know how much comes out of that plant. So you have to trust the government workers will get it right. Second the environmentalists end up chasing their tails because they cannot prioritize the problems. It is all done to "protect" the business secrets of the companies because heaven forbid other companies figure out that you make 1,678,850 wiggits each year. European citizens(and canadians until 2 years ago) get what they deserve out of their "liberal" governments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement