Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[bazjea]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/who-names-uk-cities-breaching-safe-air-pollution-levels

 

According to the data referenced here Sheffield has an annual mean PM10 level of 23ug/m3. This is joint with Birmingham. The only city with a higher mean PM10 level is Nottingham. London has a figure of 22ug/m3

 

The data does not include Manchester, which as another major city could arguably be higher.

 

Perhaps it was this that annbaker was referring to.[/quote

 

GUARDIAN Article relates to an article of 2014 using data from 2010/11

see below

"2011 data, except for Bristol and Warwick which is 2010 data. The world's average PM10 levels by region range from 26-208 ug/m3, with a world's average of 71 ug/m3"

 

The WHO DATA is from September 2016. Maybe things have improved

in the last 6 years

[Robin-H]

I don't know how to post a link but that suggests breaches not ranking - there are loads of hits on Google to the WHO report in 2016 and we are nowhere near the top of the list, not even in the top 12 - does anyone else know how to post them?

 

Without a link the following are ranked;

 

Port talbot

Glasgow

London

Scunthorpe

Leeds

Nottingham

Middlesbrough

Stoke

Stanford

Southampton

Oxford

 

We don't appear on the list.

 

As a further example the link posted highlights Chesterfield - are you saying that Chesterfield is on a par with london? Come on.

 

I am merely posting a link to an article that references data that states that at least for annual PM10 levels Sheffield is second to Nottingham and joint with Birmingham. The article does include ranking.

 

The list that you are referring to is also for ug/m3, with Port Talbot at 25 and London again on 22, and Leeds again on 21. Nottingham has improved to be 21.

 

If Sheffield was still at 23 it would be joint with Glasgow. Either Sheffield has not been included in that data set, or it has improved since 2011.

[Guest makapaka]

I am merely posting a link to an article that references data that states that at least for annual PM10 levels Sheffield is second to Nottingham and joint with Birmingham. The article does include ranking.

 

The list that you are referring to is also for ug/m3, with Port Talbot at 25 and London again on 22, and Leeds again on 21. Nottingham has improved to be 21.

 

If Sheffield was still at 23 it would be joint with Glasgow. Either Sheffield has not been included in that data set, or it has improved since 2011.

 

So we're not ranked 3rd worst for air pollution by any recognised body?

 

Like I said before I'm not trying to leg anyone up but it's wrong to say we're ranked as the 3rd most air polluted city in the uk because we're not.

[bazjea]

So we're not ranked 3rd worst for air pollution by any recognised body?

 

Like I said before I'm not trying to leg anyone up but it's wrong to say we're ranked as the 3rd most air polluted city in the uk because we're not.

 

Why did he not make it clear that the data was 6 years out of date

Surely it is pointless to use it for 2017 pollution readings

Edited March 19, 2017 by bazjea

[Robin-H]

So we're not ranked 3rd worst for air pollution by any recognised body?

 

Like I said before I'm not trying to leg anyone up but it's wrong to say we're ranked as the 3rd most air polluted city in the uk because we're not.

 

No. According to the WHO Sheffield was joint second in terms of annual mean PM10 pollution in 2011 (although the data did not include the major city of Manchester).

 

I'm sure annbaker will concede that she misremembered the figured and that we were actually second, and not third.

 

I can't find the full list of the 2016 ranking, in which Sheffield does not appear in the top 12. As I said, if Sheffield's figure was unchanged since 2011 we would again be joint second, although it is possible the figures have improved.

 

London and Leeds have the same figures, but Nottingham improved by 4 points, (which if Sheffield did would take us out of the top 12) and Birmingham does not appear in the top 12 of this list for 2016 either.

[Guest makapaka]

No. According to the WHO Sheffield was joint second in terms of annual mean PM10 pollution in 2011 (although the data did not include the major city of Manchester).

 

I'm sure annbaker will concede that she misremembered the figured and that we were actually second, and not third.

 

I can't find the full list of the 2016 ranking, in which Sheffield does not appear in the top 12. As I said, if Sheffield's figure was unchanged since 2011 we would again be joint second, although it is possible the figures have improved.

 

London and Leeds have the same figures, but Nottingham improved by 4 points, (which if Sheffield did would take us out of the top 12) and Birmingham does not appear in the top 12 of this list for 2016 either.

 

Sorry - you can't speculate on the 2011 figure and ignore the 2016 figures. We are not the 3rd worst polluting city are we?

[Robin-H]

Sorry - you can't speculate on the 2011 figure and ignore the 2016 figures. We are not the 3rd worst polluting city are we?

 

I have never said we are the 3rd worst polluting city.

 

And I'm sorry but where have I ignored the 2016 data? I've not only mentioned it in two posts, but have given examples of other cities (Nottingham and Birmingham) that have improved significantly since 2011 in order to suggest it was possible for Sheffield to have improved also.

 

I also mentioned however that I have been unable to find a full WHO list for 2016, and I have been unable to find the PM10 figures for Sheffield for 2016, so it has not been possible to say where Sheffield is ranked as without more information it is not possible to say whether Sheffield is included in the 2016 data.

[annbaker]

It was me who said 3rd most polluted city and sorry I've been busy with something else. I do have a link somewhere that was posted in the last couple of weeks on a fb group I belong to which is where the statement came from. However it's time for sleep for me so I will look for it when I get a few mins and post here.

 

However to keep you amused meantime you may want to use this to check each day. It's a 24x7 site

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/currentlevels?view=site&period=24#S

[Longcol]

These street trees are helping clean up the toxic air we're breathing in. The twiglet replacements will take years to reach the same canopy size. You do realise we're the 3rd worst air-polluted city in the UK? Why would anyone want to make that worse all because SCC and Amey won't use the engineering solutions that are in their contract at no extra charge?

 

Does canopy size correlate to air pollution?

 

In the Grauniad article Robin - H linked to;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/who-names-uk-cities-breaching-safe-air-pollution-levels

 

Stoke is nearly as bad as Sheffield.

 

According to "Trees in Towns II" (Britt and Johnson 2008 ) page 82 - hopefully you can download from here (if not happy to e-mail a copy to anybody)

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_new_survey_of_urban_trees_in_England_and_their_condition_and_management

 

Sheffield canopy cover 14.6%

Stoke canopy cover 3.1%

 

 

 

 

The document may well clear up the "over mature" trees debate - a DCLG (as was) classification - page 28

 

Over mature - full size, die-back, small leaf size, poor growth extension.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Longcol

[Cyclone]

I'm saying in my opinion the replacement of a low proportion of trees is not as big an issue as people are making out.

 

Also that it's not like people are hacking through woodland. They were trees that were planted for decorative purposes years ago that it's probably no longer practicable to maintain in suburban areas of a large city.

 

It's just to me it's not as big an issue as people are making out.

 

a) we know that it IS practical to maintain them.

b) The size of the issue isn't really in question, it's an issue, you admit it. Amey are behaving in a way that they aren't contracted to do, in order to increase their profit, why would this be acceptable even if the issue to you is quite small?