Where the hell did you read this???
A landmark report from the RCP and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health sets out the dangerous impact air pollution is having on the UK's health.
www.rcplondon.ac.uk
Our government must be doing all it can to keep our exposure to air pollution as low as possible
www.clientearth.org
Existing air pollution regulations will reduce thousands of premature adult deaths in the UK, but even the most effective technically feasible actions, which will save thousands more lives, will do little to protect the country’s sensitive ecosystems, find UCL researchers.
www.ucl.ac.uk
(And that's me leaving out all the government figures - which I'm assuming you'll just try to dismiss as some sort of "conspiracy"). You'll also notice I've taken a figure that's lower than some of those. That's because of this excellent analysis:
Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication
wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk
which points out the huge statistical uncertainty, and the fact that many of those would have died anyway, within a relatively short space of time. Although, even that last point is debatable. If you killed a 98 year old dear by running her over, I don't think you'd get very far in court, using the "but she would have died soon anyway" defence...
And, of course, not all of these deaths will be down to air pollution from road vehicles. (Just "most" of them....).
If you have figures that you regard as more accurate, I'm willing to see them.
How many death are certified because of poor air quality?
There's been 1 in London in the past 10 years.
I think you mean there's been one where the coroner has specifically mentioned it in his report? For the actual number, see above...
No, no, no.
That's not true.
Everybody knew that smoking indoors was a bad thing to do for your lungs and your clothes.
I and many others I know, were happy to move our smoking outside and not end up with smelly clothes.
Nope. Even today (never mind at the time of the ban) there are people who still don't think smoking is bad for you! (Just like, 20 or 30 years from now, there will be people who don't think vehicle emissions have any detrimental effect on health. It will just be small number who think that - just like it's a smaller number who think vehicle emissions are bad today, than it was 20 years ago. The only real difference, is that
you have come to accept that smoking is bad for you, whereas you clearly haven't reached that point on vehicle emissions yet.
You haven't explained why people in affluent areas, driving high polluting cars, have a longer life expectancy.
Might it just possibly be because air quality is only ONE factor in determining mortality?
Making people poorer will kill them earlier than a Fiat panda euro 3.
Who said anything about making people poorer? I'm about £200-£300 a month better off, running an EV. Now of course, I'm a special case because it's a company car, but then, nobody is telling you (or anyone else) that you have to go out and get an EV
tomorrow. We all know they are expensive to buy, and will remain so, until the market matures. What we CAN see, however, is that they're coming down in price all the time. And, of course (as the anti-EV brigade loves to point out), they depreciate faster. So you can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. They can't be too expensive AND suffer terrible depreciation, because if that were really true, the second hand ones wouldn't be unaffordable.