Is pollution suppressor large scale fraud?

The Mayor’s policy of gluing pollution to the roads has, it is fair to say, met with a touch of ridicule from environmental campaigners. It has long been suspected that this policy has more to do with meeting air quality targets (and therefore avoiding being fined) as it has to do with making London’s air safe to breath.

However, what has not been suspect until now is that the “pollution suppressant” is actually being deliberately targeted in front of the air quality monitoring stations. This takes the policy beyond simply brushing the problem under the carpet and into a whole hearted attempt to manipulate the figures, directly impacting on the reliability of  “smog alerts” used to warn Londoners of bad air quality days.

In this video, taken by campaigners, the air suppressant lorry can be seen driving past the air quality monitoring station (right, during the day) and spraying its load specifically next to the monitoring station only.

Simon Birkett

Simon Birkett of the Campaign for Clean Air in London explains “Using pollution suppressants in front of the air quality monitors most-used to warn the public of smog episodes and report legal breaches to the European Commission and others is public health fraud on an industrial scale. “This is deadly serious. We are talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust. It is all part of a much bigger public health failing or ‘cover-up’ to refer to such particles as ‘dust’.

“Clean Air in London estimates… that the use of pollution suppressants in Marylebone Road and Upper Thames Street may already have avoided one or both breaching the PM10 daily limit value; and reduced the number of high smog alerts at those sites by between five and eight days (i.e. 71% and 89%). Neasden Lane, apparently not included, reached the legal limit of 35 Bad Air Days on 3 April. We don’t know precise figures as the Mayor’s research indicates significant uncertainty around the effectiveness of pollution suppressants.

“If the Mayor wished to improve public health he would be making much greater efforts to reduce pollution at its source and limit the use of pollutant suppressants to local roads around schools and hospitals to benefit those most vulnerable to air pollution rather than ‘robot’ monitoring stations.

“CAL renews its call for the Mayoral candidates to condemn the use of pollution suppressants in front of official air quality monitors.”

Climate Rush

The environmental group Climate Rush upped the pressure this morning by stenciling the pavement outside the Mayor’s home at 7.30am this morning. The message, made of soot glued to the floor, read ‘this is not a solution’. The soot was collected from the sides of London’s busiest roads.

Louise Pearlman, a spokesperson for Climate Rush, said “Boris Johnson thinks gluing pollution to the roads is a good enough solution to the 4000 deaths it causes every year in London. We’ve glued soot to his street to show how ridiculous this is – the pollution is still there and is still being pumped out every day. We want to remind Boris that this health epidemic will be solved through reducing the number of vehicles on our roads, investing in safer cycling infrastructure, and lowering our prohibitive public transport fares – not with glue.”

The science

The Campaign for Clean Air in London also states that “The Mayor is using pollution suppressants along 10 routes with a total of 14 monitors. Eight of these monitors reported breaches of the PM10 daily limit value in 2011. Of the remaining six, five are on the Pollution Suppressor routes and the remaining site is Mercury Way (an ‘industrial’ site mentioned in TfL’s announcement of 23 December 2011).

“Of four other sites that recorded breaches of the PM10 daily limit value in 2011: one is shutting in 2012 (Brixton Road); one is deemed ‘unreliable’ because it is affected by emissions from a Tube ventilation shaft (Bondway Interchange); one may be sprayed later this year (Neasden Lane); and the remaining site is Brent Ikea.

“The Mayor’s approach is likely to have had a significant impact on legal compliance while doing virtually nothing to protect public health.”

These are serious allegations around one of London’s most significant public health issues. Not only does it cast doubt on the effectiveness of the technique it also raises serious concerns about whether even the use of suppressants is being applied in anything but an attempt to rig the figures to avoid large fines rather than help combat air pollution.