I am a previously fit and healthy woman in her early 60s, a never-smoker who was diagnosed with lung cancer three weeks ago.
Lung cancer in never-smokers (LCNS) doubled in the UK between 2008 and 2014. It now accounts for 15% of lung cancers diagnosed and is responsible for around 6,000 deaths a year. Recent research at UCL and the Francis Crick Institute has found that exposure to fine particulate pollution, specifically PM 2.5, is linked to LCNS as well as the growth of other cancers.
The ill-advised tax breaks on particulate emitting diesel vehicles earlier this century could well account for the UK’s huge increase in LCNS, not to mention unknowable consequences for the future health of children exposed to toxic air.
I was appalled to hear Chris Philp MP, on Any Questions on BBC Radio 4 last week, dismiss the positive impact of London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) when published data from Imperial College London shows that harmful emissions have reduced by 26% within the expanded Ulez area, and that the Ulez has reduced PM 2.5 levels by 41% since 2017.
I am now facing an uncertain future and considering treatment options. Meanwhile, measures to reduce pollution in London are being politicised, and serious risks to the health of the capital’s population pitted against election prospects (Starmer urges Khan to ‘reflect’ on Ulez rules after Uxbridge defeat, 22 July).
Name and address supplied
Rishi Sunak explains the narrow Tory byelection victory in Uxbridge and South Ruislip as the consequence of fighting on “a matter of substance” (Tory election victory hopes hit by shattering byelection defeats, 22 July).
This “matter of substance” involved measures to reduce air pollution, which causes the premature deaths of thousands of Londoners every year and worsens the lives of up to 500,000 asthma sufferers in the capital. The Tory candidate admits he focused on the concerns of local residents on how the Ulez may affect their ability to use their cars without paying the cost of the pollution they generate. In fact, 90% of the cars being driven in outer London would not be subject to Ulez payments.
Dr Martin Price
Poole, Dorset
After the Conservative victory, tiny as it was, in Uxbridge, there is talk of political parties losing their nerve over green policies. Keir Starmer is saying that we must listen to voters. But the real problem is that no party, with the exception of the Greens, is being honest with the electorate about the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss. Instead, they say the economy must come first. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the economy and the environment.
Party leaders often speak as if the environment is somehow a subset of the economy. But of course the economy is really a subset of the environment – there can be no economy without a healthy environment. This is what politicians need to be honest about. It’s the environment, stupid.
Prof Hugh Dunkerley
Brighton
With debates raging over Ulez, and over retention and pay within the NHS, I wonder whether a simple way to aid both these causes might be to review the age requirement to receive a Freedom Pass, which allows free travel, while offering the lower-paid in the NHS free travel within inner and outer London.
Living close to hospitals is often not an option within London for lower-paid staff, and transport is a considerable cost. Some staff struggle to keep a car, which they have to pay to park and which now also has to be Ulez compliant. Could London’s mayor offer Freedom Passes to this group of workers, thus targeting help at the lower paid, contributing towards staff retention and helping to keep cars off the road?
Sally Giles
London