Is Government Legislation to curb Carbon Emissions Harming Our Health?

There has been an enormous spate of legislation to curb carbon emissions, in vehicles and power stations  in order to comply with  climate change legislation and Directives such as the Climate change Act 2008. The aim is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which is  just one of the greenhouse gases. Other greenhouse gases include methane and even water vapour. This article will examine whether a serious logistical error has occurred in defining carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant.

 The carbon policies of our country aim to restrict all forms of carbon emissions.  Some landowners have become very rich on the green carbon pound at the expense of the ordinary citizen. Turbines damage wildlife and cause bats lungs to implode. The infrasound produced can be very unpleasant and may be linked to health problems. Infra sounds at seven cycles per second can cause anxiety and nausea. A recent study in America by  Professor Alec Salt confirmed the hypothesis that low infrasounds can affect the delicate cochlea leading to feelings of unease and nausea.

Animals are very sensitive to infrasounds which is why they always become agitated before an earthquake arrives. They often flee before the main tremor having detected the low infrasounds preceding the quake.

Another environmental and legislative error is the phasing out of traditional incandescent light bulbs. These light bulbs contained no toxic material, unlike the replacements that contained deadly mercury, a potent neurotoxin. Mercury poisoning was originally  responsible for the saying “mad as a hatter” as mercury was used in the felt lining by milliners in days gone by. Mercury poisoning also  gave rise to the Japanese Minamata Bay disaster which resulted in birth defects. Some consumers feel that the original light bulbs give a better reading light and do not trigger migraines or epilepsy in susceptible people. A lot of these mercury containing lights may end up in landfill where they will pollute the world for years to come. Some consumers believe that these mercury containing lights give them migraines.  The importance of full spectrum lighting to health has been shown by numerous studies. Some of the earlier CFL bulbs were leaning towards the ultraviolet end of the spectrum giving a cold light.

 Many respected scientists such as the late Professor Hal Lewis have questioned the science behind anthropogenic global warming. Proportionately far more people have died from the cold in our country than from the heat.  Thousands died from cold induced illness last Winter according to Age Concern. It is important to remember that air pollution has been proven to cool temperatures.

 The Government has designated carbon as a dangerous pollutant yet it clearly is not harmful to life on our planet since we are all carbon based life forms. CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and non toxic to humans.  Carbon taxes are simply an innovative new form of taxation.  Which is the more dangerous to human health,, a speck of plutonium or a speck of carbon? Clearly nuclear material is far more dangerous to us , yet the new policies now favour nuclear power over conventional coal fired power stations. Dividing cells are far more susceptible to radiation induced mutations. This means that pregnant women and children are more at risk from radiation since their cells are rapidly dividing.

Another of these logistical errors could be said to be the new vehicle duties levied on carbon emissions while the injurious diesel emissions are exempt from the duty. It seems that once again the policy of guarding against global warming is taking precedence.

Diesel particulates travel deep into the lungs where they easily dissolve into the bloodstream via the capillaries.

This can lead to inflammation of the arteries and lead to arteriosclerosis and even heart disease.

Therefore, I would concur that diesel fumes are probably more injurious to health than petrol fumes. White van man who makes numerous short journeys can cause a build up of particulates in the filter that can lead to engine malfunction. 

One of the main confusions is that carbon dioxide is not at all harmful to health when inhaled.

The Government has levied a tax on the carbon emissions purely on a basis of climate fears, i.e. global warming.

Therefore this measure of reducing carbon emissions in vehicles will not benefit the health of pedestrians or motorists in the slightest.

This new Vehicle Duty is another revenue-raising exercise, in line with all the other numerous carbon taxes. The halcyon days of common sense and the Clean Air act seem all but forgotten. The killer smog of yesteryear and indeed in parts of Asia today, are ignored as all the focus is now on evil carbon dioxide! Air pollution kills and the government needs to change its focus away from CO2 and global warming. The trendy wood burning stoves are also extremely injurious to health due to the particulate matter. Ironically they are being touted as eco friendly due to the concept of biomass. In fact, burning wood is very harmful to lungs and inhaling bonfire or wood smoke is equivalent to smoking hundreds of cigarettes. Not to worry as the Government now thinks we should all be burning wood in our hearths to alleviate global warming. Children are especially at risk since their lungs are still developing. So much for the Clean Air Act of the sensible 1950`s decade. This crucial legislation is now rendered obsolete by all the carbon nonsensical legislation. I vividly remember the day that my neighbours installed trendy wood burning stoves in the rush to be “green”. The sky was filled with a plume of black smoke and we all started coughing.

 The idea that  burning wood  is beneficial for the environment would be absolutely laughable were it not for the very serious health  implications.  Indeed, the owner of the  afore mentioned trendy wood burning stove went down with a nasty bout of bronchitis. Wood smoke may also exacerbate heart disease in common with inhaled vehicle particulates. So if you are thinking of installing a wood stove it might be an idea to think again if you live in a built up urban environment. A country dwelling may get away with it since the smoke will dissipate and not harm neighbours.

As well as this error in encouraging the burning of wood,  dangerous vehicle particulates which give rise to asthma, bronchitis and heart disease have not been legislated against in the new  vehicle duties. One only has to be such in a traffic jam to realise that there is still plenty of pollution  emanating from vehicles that are affecting our health.

This is yet another political error that is damaging our health and we should  all  be getting used to these by now!

The fact is, our politicians are in danger of not being able to see the wood for the trees and we may all  suffer long term  with health problems because of the love affair with “global warming”.

Copyright

By

Susan Thomas

43 Magdalen Road

Oxford OX4 1RB