Mention pollution in the city and most of us would think that London would be the worst. However, a new study from the World Health Organisation (WHO) shows that we would be wrong. Their research revealed that 47 towns across the UK have unsafe pollution levels – and London wasn’t the worst.
The worst pollution problems
The study looked at levels of fine particle emissions known as PM2.5 across the UK. 47 towns and cities have reached unsafe levels, 32 of which have exceeded the limit of 10 micrograms per cubic metre.
Fine particle emissions come from a range of sources including transport, industry, coal plants as well as burning wood, fuels and waste, which have a connection with a variety of health problems including heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and respiratory infections.
The study showed that London, Manchester, and Liverpool were all above the WHO limits, but it was Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire that reached the 1st place as the most polluted place in the UK. In fact, London, typically associated with high pollution, was not even listed in the top 20.
The top 20 most polluted places were:
- Scunthorpe – 15
- Salford – 15
- Thurrock – 14
- Manchester – 13
- Swansea – 13
- Gillingham, Kent – 13
- Carlisle – 12
- Chepstow – 12
- Leeds – 12
- Leicester – 12
- Liverpool – 12
- Grays – 12
- Eccles – 12
- Nottingham – 12
- Plymouth – 12
- York – 12
- Prestonpans – 12
- Royal Leamington Spa – 12
- Southampton – 10
- Birmingham – 10
As well as these figures, the WHO recorded a level of 10 micrograms in Brighton, Bristol, Newcastle, Portsmouth and Port Talbot.
Pollution exposure
The figures show that 9 out of 10 people around the world are exposed to air pollution at dangerous levels and that some 7 million people each year die due to poor air quality. Clean air campaigners were quick to call on the government to act considering the new report.
ClientEarth, an environment law charity said that the new statistics show a ‘worrying level of dangerous air pollution’ across the UK. They added that people shouldn’t have to breathe air that is termed unhealthy daily. Their solution is a new Clean Air Act to create a plan to deal with the problem.
Alison Cook, policy director at the British Lung Foundation, called the pollution problem a ‘leading environment public health crisis’ in the UK. She added that action to deal with these toxic particles in the air needs to be taken quickly.
The government is already looking to crack down on pollution and emissions from cars and has introduced a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars in 2040, and with some cities introducing diesel bans already it seems that the world is taking this very seriously. Automotive has often been thought to be a top provider of pollution, and indeed the number of cars on the road has increased, and the rise of SUVs and larger cars means more pollution. Some newer cars are cleaner, such as the Euro 6 diesel, but they are still producing dangerous particulates that harm people. While environmentalists protest in the way of electric, it seems that producing the batteries and the power needed to charge each car will still have an effect on the environment.
Problems around the world
The issue of air pollution in the UK is pressing and worrying. However, the study wasn’t just carried out here in the UK, and our pollution levels are nowhere near as dangerous as the most polluted cities in the world – with nine of the top ten being in India.
Top of the list is Kanpur in India with a frightening 173 micrograms per cubic meter, closely followed by Faridabad with 172 and Varanasi with 151 micrograms. Out of the list, the only one not in India was Bamenda, Cameroon with 132 micrograms per cubic meter. Part of the problem here isn’t just from vehicles but also from extensive deforestation.
Moreover, while the problem of deaths due to pollution is one the UK must deal with, it is also far lower than other places around the world. The death rate for contamination here is only one-fifth of the levels seen in India and one-sixth of those seen in China. It is also below the European average.
Dealing with the problem
While the picture here in the UK may not be as bad as in other parts of the world, it is still a huge worry for all of us. Moreover, the government is planning to up their game by introducing new measures to halve the number of people living in dangerously polluted areas by 2025.
The new proposals will let local governments take steps to improve air quality and clamp down on the most polluting coal and wood burners. The aim is to significantly cut back those tiny particulates that cause so many problems.
Campaigners say that more needs to be done. A diesel scrappage scheme is one favoured by the British Lung Foundation alongside investment in cleaner travel alternatives for public transport and encouraging walking and cycling wherever possible.
The government’s plan also looks at reducing other types of pollution including ammonia emissions from farms and the dust from vehicle brakes and tyres. However, Labour called this ‘hugely disappointing’, and said that very little was done to tackle the real problem. Work is also needed to reduce the strain on the NHS – experts say that air pollution is costing £20 billion a year on a system that is already struggling to cope with the demands being placed on it.
Have you ever noticed a problem with pollution where you live? Or when you visit one of the big cities? We’d love to hear from your experiences.
In the 1970’s if you parked a clean car in London there would be a very light covering of soot by the end of the day & around Oxford street the air actually wasn’t pleasant to breathe. Having said that Athens at the same time was far worse; I was there for just 2 days & I couldn’t wait to leave! Today however things have changed & I never notice air that isn’t pleasant to breathe or soot on my car.. wherever I go; however, I have never visited India. The point is that we are not where we were but you wouldn’t believe it reading this article. I don’t suppose environmental campaigners will ever relax & admit they have achieved their goals, rather constantly moving the goal posts so they still have something to campaign about.
I disagree that the battle is ever won. Until we can coexist with all other species without any impact on numbers or behaviours then we need to continue to reduce our environmental impact. There have been unintended consequences on the way, for example, low energy lighting is reducing carbon emissions but has increased light pollution, causing more problems for nocturnal species. You are right, things are way better, but we need to keep going!
In order to achieve the goal you describe the population of the world would need to reduce because the more of us there are, the greater the impact on all other species. However all animals have a selfish instinct for survival, including humans & as such only a natural [or unnatural] disaster would achieve that objective. Protecting the environment in fact has the selfish sub text of protecting it for us & our children [survival] & so is not as altruistic as it may first sound.
In this article the focus is on air polution which as with all things ends with arbitrary limits being set which may or may not be necessary. These are the goal posts that keep moving so we never arrive, unless some activity or other ends up completly banned with little obvious gain & often perverse consequence. You can say everything has an impact but in that case better not get up in the morning.
1970’s and clean car don’t sit side by side. There were mostly petrol cars (many smoking) and diesel lorries (again, many smoking). Most of the pollution came from domestic coal fires. Doesn’t anyone remember the smogs?
These days the pollutants are very small but just as deadly. In most Chinese and Asian cities many people wear a mask and for good reason. The last time I visited Guangzhou my mouth tasted of metals and my nose was black after a blow. Yuk!
Perhaps I am mistaken but the petrol & diesel around in the 1970’s is the same petrol & diesel around now, minus the lead in petrol of course. Hence the small pollutants identified now would also have been around then. In any event the point is that air quality has improved significantly in this country which should be acknowledged instead of constantly raising the bar to the point where only zero emissions is acceptable.
Diesel fuel has changed, as in it has Bio fuel mixed in. I think it was about 30 percent, this is what made the particles smaller, they know it, and will not change it back.
Looks like they invented the problem to ban the diesel car. They are banning electric and hybrid cars that don’t match their specs.
How long will it be until they ban private transport all together.
They are banning wood burning fires and stoves cos they want you to buy their gas or electric.
Invent a problem and do away with choice!
Who is “they”?
The thing is, back in the 1970s (and it was even worse in the 1950s!) life expectancy was shorter and more people smoked anyway, so they’d die before the atmospheric pollution had a chance to take them out.
in Battersea the cement works in Silverthorne road produce cement dust that covers the cars daily, they do this every day and night even weekends to meet the demands of the city
The particles talked of in this article are also released from industrial chimneys/incinerators so doing anything with output from vehicles will be offset by the increase in incinerators burning rubbish because it is cheaper than putting it into landfill.
Citation / evidence needed please. Quite happy to point out at least one modern incinerator on the continent that has cleaner air around it than being in the centre of town.
Just one there are plenty more if you search https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2000/may/18/pollution.uknews
That article was published in 2000 though. There is much better management of industrial incinerators nowadays. I can’t quite get my head around why we will use incinerators more if we improve the emissions performance of vehicles though?
Try looking at one near Ipswich.
The one good thing about incineration is that there is no stray plastic getting into the sea. It’s all a trade off, and dumping in a hole in the ground is not the answer. Sure there is an increase in chemical emissions and particulate release, but the challenge is to develop technologies to deal with this. It seems that degrading plastic in the oceans is going to be a bigger problem in the long run than emissions even if they appear to be nasty, with some effort and technology advances everything is possible, except perhaps dealing with thoughtless individuals leaving their plastic everywhere.
Yes, I agree. It’s much easier to monitor (and upgrade) the emissions from one incinerator than from (say) 10,000 cars. Also, we can then recover “waste” energy – which will reduce the amount of fuel burned in conventional power stations a little to offset what comes out of the incinerator.
Let’s get the facts right – the NHS is being deliberately underfunded. It is only struggling to cope because of that and that nursing bursaries were scrapped and drs who need visas to work for it are not being granted them. Imagine if the RBS shares had been sold at the price originally paid for them and that £2 billion shortfall was given to the NHS…
And your view on pollution is….? Keep to the facts and stay out of politics.
Southampton’s issue is that of pollution from ships. This is well known. Is anyone going to shut the container port and cruise terminals,? Nope, thought not. Let’s ban cars though, they are all nasty. Complete rubbish.
Yes, it’s a problem in Southampton, but nationwide, we don’t have too many cruise liners in Manchester or Birmingham. We do,however, have lots of cars and trucks…!
I do have a problem beleiving these so called figures. Carlisle for instance is virually rural with only the quiet part of the M6 passing the town and yet it is classed as a 12, in reality it is probably only a 6, but Birmingham which sits in a hollow and surrounded by some of the busiest motorways is only a 10, I don’t think so!. There are some lies here and by the politiciens who have a agenda.
Carlisle city centre is bad at peak times. I live out in the sticks, about 20 miles from Carlisle, so whenever I visit I REALLY notice the change in air quality when I step out of the car. Carlisle might be a large rural area but the city itself has all the ingredients needed for toxic air, it’s just in a smaller city. At the moment one of Carlisle’s major roads is closed so there is abnormal congestion in other areas of the city as all the normal traffic has to drive further with fewer available routes. That’s what happens when a city develops around multiple rivers and everyone has to rely on the same few bridges with no real alternative routes available.
Grays and Thurrock should be as One.
As far as I am aware the WHO admitted that they had had got the Port Talbot figures wrong and it was lower than quoted( but still to high for my liking) but industry is where the suspicion of blame is pointed ,rather than just pollution from vehicles.
Hi Mike, that is correct and we have now updated the article
18. Prestonpans – 12 This must be quite old data! Prestonpans had a coal fired power station, but this was completely demolished several years ago after lying idle for several years? As far as I can see there are no signs of industrial pollution in that area now.
I notice the pollution list is for cities. What about towns like Pontefract with local traffic congestion, long ques from he school run, holdups on the A1 where three lanes merge into two, and fumes from the M62. I cannot breath easily on Monday mornings. We have decided to move away to Essex after a friend of mine died from lung disease having lived near the A1 for only ten years. There must be other very localised places that should be monitored.
Don’t move anywhere near to the Darford Crossing, there you will be aware of emissions from traffic congestion.
Don’t move to the “city” of Royal Leamington Spa!
Don’t forget planes of all types. Pollution from these is very very high
If you were really serious about reducing pollution you would have to start at the source of most manufactured goods and coal which come from China, USA and Australia. Further you would have to ask why we are importing coal when we have billions of tons still in the ground. My local power station was fitted with scrubbers to remove CO2 but the French owners decided to close it early
We live in a rural area but the county council want to make us polluted by installing a waste-burning incinerator right in the middle of agricultural land to burn all the poisonous stuff from London and surrounding areas, so not only the incinerator pollution but the lorries that will deliver the waste too.
Might not be that bad an idea. Worth seeing what levels of pollution come out of similar modern incinerators. There are a few in the more polluted areas of Europe where the stuff coming out of incinerators is cleaner than the surrounding air!
You have my deepest sympathy.
Royal Leamington Spa suffers from numerous “speed humps” so the constant slowing down and then speeding up is a factor contributing to the high pollution levels.
Get your facts updated Lisa Edwards that was old news which was rescinded when challenged and P Talbot was found not to be the worse polluters, After the B.P plant in Baglan was demolished it instantly made a difference .Ive lived here all my life and considering the Industry that’s left they also are cleaning up their act..Yes a work in progress but Not the worse polluters..Angry resident
I’m sorry to hear you’re disappointed, the figures we initially received contained these figures, and we never received a revised list. However, after research I have found an updated source and have updated the article accordingly, thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Please make drivers switch off when vehicles are stationary /parked. Frequently happens near our homes only about a couple of metres from our front doors, drivers making very long phone calls, or waiting outside the local shop while family members /others do the shopping.
I don’t believe the underlying data is correct. The monitoring station in Leamington is right by a major road, yet the one in Coventry is in the middle of a massive park, so it’s OBVIOUS that the Leamington one will record more pollution than the Coventry one.
In 1976, in Birmingham city centre, I was in charge of a large chiller plant with two open water cooling towers on the roof, in pre legionaries disease days. We had to clean the silt out of the shallow pans every fortnight, and the quantity was immense. We then dried a sample and sent it for analysis, and the majority was poisonous lead, followed by sulphuric acid, arsenic and other deadly chemicals. We were breathing that every minute, for 24/7. Now, the smell of pollution is overwhelming, to the extent where I had to shut the doors in the recent heatwave, and my wife’s lifelong asthma has got worse.
i think one of the worse pollutions are the farmer spraying there slurry in the air as it must be bacteria andthat can’t be good to breathe
Port Talbot is NOT the worst please read this they got their Sums wrong. Look at https://www.npt.gov.uk/1410?pr_id=5911
Hi Gavin, we’ve updated the article as mentioned previously, please try refreshing the page and you should see the correct stats.
I find it very hard to believe that Swansea is more polluted than Port Talbot. Yes, Swansea may, unfortunately, be the unlucky recipient of some of Port Talbot’s second hand pollution, but it surely is not MORE polluted? Maybe the wind was blowing in the wrong direction when they carried out their tests!
I am getting slightly fed up with the constant barrage against the car owner. A couple of years ago I changed my car – possibly spent a little more than I would normally and bought a bigger car. Id only had it 3 weeks when the diesel emissions scandel broke, Not my fault I bought my car in good faith. Now all we here is get these cars off the road – well I tell you what – I will happily change my car if someone will pay me to – not some scrap age scheme that will pay peanuts – but proper money to enable to replace the car I bought in good faith.
There more pollution from industry than cars.
I HAVE STOPPED BUYING ANYTHING MADE IN CHINA AND BUYING RECYCLED GOODS WHICH PROBABLY OLDER ARE BETTER MADE.THE AMOUNT OF GOODS WE DON’T NEED IS BOUGHT IN BY HUGE CONTAINER SHIPS.WHO NEEDS CARS MADE IN FAR AWAY PLACES WHEN WE CAN MAKE THEM OURSELVES.15 OF THE WORLDS BIGGEST SHIPS CREATE MORE POLLUTION THAN ALL THE VEHICLES OF THE WORLD.
Namron, Great idea to build our own cars a we did in the past. Austin, Morris, Vauxhall, Triumph, Hillman etc., and the best bit they were all “Biodegradable” as within a few years they rusted away.
How environmentally friendly they were.
You’re right, so much pollution caused by transporting tat across the world. We need to stop buying stuff!
#6 Gillingham – 13 »»» which one ? Dorset, Kent, Wiltshire, etc
We’ve had a check of the data, and it’s Kent, sorry for the confusion
I like the queen have been breathing this toxic air for many years ,I am 71 the queen is 91 ,if the air was as bad as SADIQ KHAN makes out ,why aren’t we all walking round with masks on like the japanese
Shocking indictment of how the Indian Government have little or no concern for the plight of their own nationals. I recall the Bophal incident in about 1985, where a western gas company operated a chemical manufacturing plant and had an explosion that poisoned many of the local inhabitants and employees. The cries and screams by the Indians led to the accusation that, because their country had a Third World status, the western standards were not applied by the company for India. I just wonder how the Indian Government reconcile their widespread, record pollution levels with any concern for their own people.
In the UK, and a lot of Europe, life expectancies are massively increased since the 1950
s, that is common knowledge so please dont ask for a citation!Pollutants do have an effect on life expectancy, however, it is usually from a few days to a couple of years, not a very early death, as the scare stories would like you to believe.
Of course there are effects on heart, lung and some other organs which may severely shorten life in some people but, by and large, most people are living significantly longer lives.
That
s not to say that pollution is not a bad thing, of course it is. The reduction of pollutants must be continued. A lot has been done since the bad old days but, to be honest, our lifestyles frequently inhibit improvement. Our materialistic lifestyle has largely off-shored pollution to countries like China, so thats one issue swept under the carpet, however, CO2 emissions have an equal effect world-wide.Modern incinerators use a method of burning refuse in the absence of oxygen, gasification, that means that the presence of harmful pollutants are lower than background at the smokestack!
PS -My comment should be considered opinion based on fact which I have been imbued with through an education which emphasised critical thinking. If you want citations look for them yourself!
Research does not indicate that people die from being exposed to air pollution. Rather the studies indicate that the life expectancy is shortened or may be shortened in those persons exposed to air pollution. I agree with that, but what it is not mentioned is the value of the shortening, is it five years or less than a year?. The relevant parameter is the loss of life expectancy or LOLE. A parameter that it is closely guarded in most air pollution reports.
In Weymouth Dorset the local council have adopted a policy of replacing free flowing roundabouts with traffic lights, causing permanent traffic queues alongside residential properties throughout the day.
Despite local complaints nothing is done.
I’m going to be technical now, just a warning.
There is a problem with car engines, the way the oil breathers are designed (EU & US spec etc). They cause pollution.
The engine when running, pumps up some high pressure and this needs to go somewhere (not in to the air). The pressure is a mixture of air and hot engine oil vapors, this travels up the breather pipe and joins the air intake right next to the throttle body.
On a car with 90,000 miles, the throttle position sensor gets covered in oil and can cut the engine out stone dead. But the oil is supposed to go down in to the combustion chamber, get burned and then pumped out of the exhaust.
A new engine isn’t going to be so bad, but an engine that is near to 90,000 on the clock may well have a problem. Especially a small petrol engine like a Renault Clio, that has been miss used (boy racer). Piston rings and valve seals wear, pushing the pressure right through the oil in the cylinder head, which exaggerates the problem.
Ever had Mayo oil? Cold damp air from the air intake, mixing with oil vapor from the breather pipe, result is mayo. Modern oil has detergent in it; wash up a chip pan with washing up liquid and see it emulsify (mayo). I have seen this with new engines and old.
I have removed two liters of mayo a month from my old car (1000,000 miles) using a home made capture tank.
The answer is:
Don’t design an engine with the breather pipe coming from the head. Always have it coming from the crank cases. Use an expansion tank (to take away some of the pressure) with an oil capture, that returns the oil back to the engine when it’s switched off.
Told you it was going to be technical 🙂
Cambridge is very bad. More traffic congestion than London. 20mph posted ….overtaken by pedestians!!
snail-pace traffic in low gears gobbling fuel, underused bus lanes, “traffic calming” imposing planned road hazards
roads artificially narrowed by cycle lanes plus some of the most expensive parking in the country.
In spite of the “Clean Air Act” now fashionable to have a “Wood-Burner”, local DIY, garages etc all selling cheap
low quality coal not to mention BBQues and patio heaters.
Basic problem is too many people all trying to access the same central area, and the local authority is attempting
to maximize the Poll Tax income by building more and more satellite villages whose residents will all want to work in Cambridge.To add to the confusion some of the most prolific and badly sited and organised traffic lights I have ever seen, plus throw in a few potholes and broken road surfaces to make the cyclists even more unpredictable
Stay away from Cambridge !!………. bad for your health and even worse for your pocket !
live in York, small backstreet, double yellow lines, back of Cathedral/Minster, and motorists come and park, engine running whilst passenger goes off to shop etc.
I am sick to the back teeth of knocking on car windows and telling ignorant motorists that I am having to close my windows whilst they pollute the city with exhaust fumes. We need road signs to remind these numbnuts to SWITCH OFF, it is an offence to sit with an engine running if not in a traffic hold.
Oh! Who can you believe? Having live,traveled and worked in industry through out this country I have trouble believing reports like these! It appears to me that the British public are being played to justify more money making schemes such as congestion charges. From my experiance London for axample is that it is and always has been the dirtiest city in the country. I believe that London should be listed a number 1 on the pollution chart. This report appears to me to be an excuse to cadule more congestion charges into all the other cities in the country purely for financial gain with no honest justification. Easy money obtained by making the motorists and industry pay without appeal again for what is already financed by them!
I’ve always thought the idea of burning our waste is far more efficient than trying to bury it or use it for ‘landfill’. After all, there must be an unimaginable mass of it, given the size of world population.. Tell me please, why is it so impossible to produce massive industrial incinerators without producing pollution? Surely it can’t be that difficult. Can’t help feeling we ought to be able to produce usable energy from it as well. A win win situation in fact!!
It just depends on where the measurements were taken. Take them next to a steelworks and you have fiddled the result right from the start.
could not believe that Swansea was higher up the list than port Talbot; which has heavy industry
Ten years ago I rented my home off a farmer in Lincolnshire,I was in the field one day helping him pull up and scrap wooden fence posts, when I asked him why ,because they had only been put in the year before,he replied its because they had been treated with creosote so the govt were paying him to replace them with environmental friendly protected posts.seemed reasonable till I asked him what he was doing with the old posts,the govt were paying him to send them to China…..to be burnt in power stations ……hmmm,pardon me for being intelligent but don’t we all live under the same sky,I still remember Chernobyl.
It would also help if people didn’t keep cutting down our trees!