Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum

Each car in London costs us £8,000

From the Independent: We know the health impacts of air pollution, and now the economic case for cleaning up the air we breathe has been laid bare:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

https://www.cibse.org/Knowledge/Sustainability-Overview/Air-Quality

I think that we'd be working from the other direction. For example, in schools CO2 is the evil one, we know that high levels of CO2 have an effect on productivity, but a pound/shilling/pence value hasn't been determined. Therefore for IAQ we'd look at maintaining levels at a maximum of either 1000ppm or 1500ppm (this, of course, may change), whereas outside CO2 levels are closer to 350ppm.

So, in other buildings the number of air changes, levels of filtration, etc would work towards what is healthier. And that's the reference point.

I'm sure that I could fire up the work computer to pull out some marketing statistics, but they wouldn't mean too much. To this end, I equally struggle with headline figures.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
0 likes

I think I've seen that document before - the image of the house with the different pollutants looks familiar. It's telling that they admit that no single department is responsible for indoor pollutants and that the issue doesn't receive enough attention. I'd guess that it's still true now (report from 2010).

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like
Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like

No, hence the original question... yes

EDIT: Not all VOCs carry a smell.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

@Don - I do agree with you and I personally try to not do any polishing, painting or laying (of carpets). Although that might be more to do with my laziness than anything else.

I'm definitely biased against traffic fumes as I find them to be more intrusive/smelly than the smell of VOCs, but as far as I know, I don't get exposed to extreme levels of VOCs. Although I work in an office, I don't share it with a printer/photocopier. However, elsewhere in the same building we have some nasty furniture treatment products which do require proper ventilation.

Out of interest, do you have any stats/figures on VOCs and health problems?

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

Fair enough, there's no danger there then, as you were.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

don simon wrote:

Fair enough, there's no danger there then, as you were.

I'm not sure that there's no danger; high levels are associated with "sick building syndrome" and "building related illness".

.https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

Fair enough, there's no danger there then, as you were.

I'm not sure that there's no danger; high levels are associated with "sick building syndrome" and "building related illness".

.https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

Thanks for the link, but I'm aware of that, which is why I work in an area that goes someway forward in offering a solution and improving IAQ while reducing energy consumption.

The point being that we're happy to pick on the headline bad boys, often from a perceived position of superiority ("I don't own a dirty diesel") while all along we are all guilty of killing the planet to some degree or other. Some just don't make the headlines, or are fashionable enough, or indeed, distanced from me enough.

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

Fair enough, there's no danger there then, as you were.

I'm not sure that there's no danger; high levels are associated with "sick building syndrome" and "building related illness".

.https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

Thanks for the link, but I'm aware of that, which is why I work in an area that goes someway forward in offering a solution and improving IAQ while reducing energy consumption.

The point being that we're happy to pick on the headline bad boys, often from a perceived position of superiority ("I don't own a dirty diesel") while all along we are all guilty of killing the planet to some degree or other. Some just don't make the headlines, or are fashionable enough, or indeed, distanced from me enough.

I get your point and I do agree that as a society we do cherry pick which things are the current badboy of the month.

With VOCs, they seem to be extremely variable/localised e.g. freshly painted houses will be incredibly high for a period of time. Presumably, this makes it more difficult to get a sensible figure for our typical exposure to them. With general air pollution, we can easily set up static monitoring, but that's not going to be relevant with VOCs as most of them will be inside buildings.

I'd imagine that reducing exposure to VOCs could be achieved by leaving buildings to "breathe" after being painted etc. whereas there doesn't seem to be an easy way to limit exposure to traffic fumes apart from moving away from population centres.

 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

Fair enough, there's no danger there then, as you were.

I'm not sure that there's no danger; high levels are associated with "sick building syndrome" and "building related illness".

.https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

Thanks for the link, but I'm aware of that, which is why I work in an area that goes someway forward in offering a solution and improving IAQ while reducing energy consumption.

The point being that we're happy to pick on the headline bad boys, often from a perceived position of superiority ("I don't own a dirty diesel") while all along we are all guilty of killing the planet to some degree or other. Some just don't make the headlines, or are fashionable enough, or indeed, distanced from me enough.

I get your point and I do agree that as a society we do cherry pick which things are the current badboy of the month.

With VOCs, they seem to be extremely variable/localised e.g. freshly painted houses will be incredibly high for a period of time. Presumably, this makes it more difficult to get a sensible figure for our typical exposure to them. With general air pollution, we can easily set up static monitoring, but that's not going to be relevant with VOCs as most of them will be inside buildings.

I'd imagine that reducing exposure to VOCs could be achieved by leaving buildings to "breathe" after being painted etc. whereas there doesn't seem to be an easy way to limit exposure to traffic fumes apart from moving away from population centres.

 

How long should we allow buildings to "breathe" (wonders whether there's a company naming opportunity in there...)?

And how much time do we spend indoors?

Let's not forget that it's not just paint, or a shortish term problem after painting, laying new carpet, gluing new flooring, etc. There's a whole week to week air freshener, polishing, domestic cleanering thing to contend with.

It is a huge problem for both health and the environment.

I am somewhat biased and will let the focus stay on dirty diesels.

Avatar
madcarew replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

Fair enough, there's no danger there then, as you were.

I'm not sure that there's no danger; high levels are associated with "sick building syndrome" and "building related illness".

.https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

Thanks for the link, but I'm aware of that, which is why I work in an area that goes someway forward in offering a solution and improving IAQ while reducing energy consumption.

The point being that we're happy to pick on the headline bad boys, often from a perceived position of superiority ("I don't own a dirty diesel") while all along we are all guilty of killing the planet to some degree or other. Some just don't make the headlines, or are fashionable enough, or indeed, distanced from me enough.

I get your point and I do agree that as a society we do cherry pick which things are the current badboy of the month.

With VOCs, they seem to be extremely variable/localised e.g. freshly painted houses will be incredibly high for a period of time. Presumably, this makes it more difficult to get a sensible figure for our typical exposure to them. With general air pollution, we can easily set up static monitoring, but that's not going to be relevant with VOCs as most of them will be inside buildings.

I'd imagine that reducing exposure to VOCs could be achieved by leaving buildings to "breathe" after being painted etc. whereas there doesn't seem to be an easy way to limit exposure to traffic fumes apart from moving away from population centres.

 

How long should we allow buildings to "breathe" (wonders whether there's a company naming opportunity in there...)?

And how much time do we spend indoors?

Let's not forget that it's not just paint, or a shortish term problem after painting, laying new carpet, gluing new flooring, etc. There's a whole week to week air freshener, polishing, domestic cleanering thing to contend with.

It is a huge problem for both health and the environment.

I am somewhat biased and will let the focus stay on dirty diesels.

I like your point. I think of those little automatic "airfresheners" as cancer cabinets. I have very little doubt that they're doing our personal health as little benefit as they are that of the environment.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

Anyone done a report on VOCs and the cost to health?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

don simon wrote:

Anyone done a report on VOCs and the cost to health?

I can't find anything. As far as I know, we don't routinely measure VOCs so there's no historical data.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

To go along with a bit of pollution hate, here's an article from the Grauniad about dirty diesels: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/06/impossible-to-cheat-...

Latest Comments