If you read further, the Public Health England research was limited by constraints of no comparable data. To the point that data from other countries has to be dissected and modelled.Problem is that there is no actual UK or London data. It is extremely rare for pollutant causes go on death certificates except in extreme incidentsBut then look at how many pollution attributed illnesses that were once common just 40 years ago and are now almost unheard of.Again no actual accurate records were kept. Even when asbestosis highlighted the once wonder materials fatal consequences.So much is modelled and based in supposition, not actual fact. And anything inhaled, rubbed on or absorbed - even water can have detrimental health implications.It's easy to forget just how filthy London was 70 years ago, how filthy much of it was even 50 years ago and how clean it is to those over that age who remember and lived in it then.How long people live right here, in far better health (most problems are wear are tear ) and for far longer is indicative of that.Fact is if the kind of figures being banded about of Child deaths were really true , we would all know someone and most likely be related to someone.We all used to know of someone who died of a heart attack relatively young. That's not what one hears nowadays.But from Dementia seems to be rally common. But again there are no absolute links, only theories that it may be a pollutant. From Aluminium , Mercury or Coffee. It's just not known for sure. That does not stop a statistic being pedalled out.Nor does the use of percentages. "89% of residents want this" 89% of how many residents?17% of voters turned out to an election. Yet the winner boasts an overwhelming majority. But 17% of the registered electorate is a few hundred people.
Raymond Havelock ● 393d