Skip to main content
Air PollutionGeneral News

Demolition of the junk-science behind air quality legitimised Mobility Restriction measures

By 21st March 20233 Comments

I want to restate the actual and contrived, not mistaken, fraud perpetuated by politicians creating fake crises from invisible threats contrived in models by “scientists” that never match what really happens, because the “scientists” are dishonest, corrupted by political funding to support politicians’ lies, with our money.

“What does the science say, Chief Scientist?”….”What do you want it to say, Minister?”

SURPRISE!  Khan’s “filthy” polluted air of London is in the second lowest WHO category of “interim target”, 5-10 micro grams per metre cubed, in the top 25% of global cities.

Better than Amsterdam, Paris or Rome, or Berlin, etc. Lower than 75% of the World’s cities. Lower than a speeding tube train.

The top end is 60+.  The lowest category is close to no particles, which cannot happen in nature, and levels get higher the further from oceans you are, due to fires, agriculture, dust-storms,etc. Compare the figures to the locations. PM2.5s occur naturally – in ……dust storms, fires, agriculture, etc.

So London is close to as low as we can get with continued economic activity. Who knew? Not Khan apparently. But he is advised by experts…… So either he is – or they are – lying.

Hence the goals of the UN-WHO and Sadiq Kahn cannot be to clean up London’s atmosphere. At a substantial cost to our economic activity and mobility – to no actual effect on health, per the ONS data on UK life expectancy, some spot international points below.


PM2.5s are the latest invisible threat touted by the UN WHO, and, as with CO2 and climate, and COVID deaths, the reality we measure says their claims are wrong when tested by the fact of observation, what really happens. Because they make it up in models, it’s not real, and they are wrong. Again


Even the WHO show the levels we have COMPLY WITH THEIR INTERIM TARGET. Lower than many European cities. WHERE is Khan’s “filthy polluted air”?

He has access to the same data so is overtly lying. Clearing the air cannot be the reason for his pointless measures, that have NO BENEFIT TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE BEING FORCED UPON. We already gave, are close to as low as we can get, and keep working at a developed country level of economic activity.

P.S.: Down in the Tube is so much worse than on the streets, None of Khan’s plans are justified by their claims.

And it’s likely such a level cannot be bettered, unless there is much less commercial activity, or you are at a port city near an ocean, or in the middle of an ocean.

The reality of the data is that the objectives of realistic pollution reduction have already been met in most developed countries, also the case with Man-made CO2 emissions reduction, to the lowest economically practical levels with clean gas and zero emissions nuclear replacing coal, and our levels are way below the majority of the rest of the World, who have yet to start addressing their serious levels of pollution.

We actually don’t need to do anything except wait for the rest to use the wealth they create burning coal and whatever else they need to catch up, and join our club.

We already gave..… we don’t have a problem to solve

Going lower is possible, but trying to make big reductions when close to zero is impossible, and pointless, unless Londoners want to end all useful productive activity, and become a useless bureaucracy of paper-pushing parasites with no useful economic output, like Canberra, for example. Lowest emissions = no progressive output.

Also note that doubling PM2.5s from 10 to 20 has an insignificant effect on life expectancy, so the statistical attribution of WHO modellers used to claim 4,000 deaths pa in London from pollution is a demonstrably false and artificial attribution, when measured against the reality of the health statistics.

The health effect of PM2.5s is, self evidently, a noise level effect on actual life expectancy below several 10’s of micrograms/m3.

In fact, the bastardised μg/m3 unit equates to roughly parts per trillion expressed in parity (g & cm3) status SI units; instead of millionths of a gram per million cubic centimetres misrepresentation by using μg/m3. We would not even be aware of these concentrations, without highly sophisticated modern measurement equipment.

The WHO attribution is false and politically motivated, to justify control and taxation, to slow and then reverse the development of targeted developed countries by using their own laws, blindly following the UN-WHO’s flawed methods and claims.

But note that, in this case, even the UN’s recommendations suggest London is already a very clean city.

NOT A (REAL) PROBLEM. The Mayor still doesn’t know – or he doesn’t want to know.

These data, checked also against corresponding real life-expectancy data, clearly shows that the supposed threshold for danger levels the WHO claim is real, has been lowered until it’s close to natural background level.

The WHO have reduced them to curtail industrial activity driven by machines, especially targeting vehicles, which are in fact less than 20% of all particulates in cities, and that nowadays are mostly from vehicle tyre and brake dust emissions, not from their exhaust pipes. This is nothing to do with protecting the health of people, on which prosperity has a much greater effect, which is why Londoners live longer than anyone else in the UK.

The continued claims of the need to go lower, even below natural background, can do nothing at levels of significance we can really measure (versus make up), to reduce the overtly tiny health risk – when it’s measured by real, not QALY-guessed, health impacts.

This is the same fraud as attributing “climate change” to CO2, which then does not behave as their models predicted so is false: the observations do not support the theory. But they keep pushing a proven lie. Why?

You can’t make it up. That’s their job.

2. SOME NUMBERS: Sanity check versus epidemiologists’ made up models.

Life expectancy in London is mid 83 versus mid 82 in Beijing, PM2.5s are at 10 & 30 respectively. Any correlation is tiny/ insensitive. Spot the BS (Bad Science – of false attribution).

Full report PDF attached. Plus two key pages separately

Note where the real problems are ….

“Air pollution most severely impacts already vulnerable populations. More than 90% of pollution related deaths occur in low-income and middle-income countries.3 Children under 18 years old, pregnant women, and older adults all have increased risk of developing or worsening health conditions from air pollution exposure.4 “. i.e., NOT at close to background levels of PM2.5s.

3. HOW THE WEST WAS CONNED: Note, as ever, the small print says the actual effects of PM2.5s are not well known, these are always weasel-words that indicate they believe it is caused by whatever they say it is (i.e., the “scientists” say they believe their own guesses because the politicians told them to “prove” the problem, by statistical attribution).

BUT they don’t KNOW, they GUESS, and, like the QALY measurement -never intended for this purpose BTW – simply attribute their chosen problem du jour to the target they are paid to demonise, as a contributory cause of various heart and respiratory diseases. There is no proof of the sensitivity levels AND …. people are not dying at the rates they predict. Bodies with death certificates are missing.

Just as with climate emergency, local extremes and incidents, which are exceptional events in the reality of frequency and location, will always happen. and are statistically insignificant at a global level for climate, and at a city level for PMs. There MAY be ways to improve emissions levels in sensitive areas; EVs in the centre of London only, for example. But these emissions levels can also be achieved by properly developed ICEs, with net lower emissions than EVs possibly. So mandating a solution is wrong, fixing the problem where it is real best, and at lowest cost is the rational (BATNEEC) approach. There are no simple blanket solutions to complex problems.

In the reality we measure, the assumptions of modellers as regards PM2.5s are still a small part of the cause of each certifiable major cause of death. 

But, when guessed small percentages of big numbers of people are cumulated, it bigs up their guesses to a number that looks like a statistical emergency – that is neither happening in fact nor reality.

Just like climate change and COVID deaths, this allows small effects to be massively overstated for political ends as regards their impacts, several Fergusons in error, to falsely justify controlling and/ or taxing whatever they don’t like us doing/ having in the name of fake science they commission.

Because they don’t explain what the reality on the ground is in a comparable manner – compared to what? 

e.g. A LOT of people die of the notifiable causes of death that are associated by statisticians with PMs by their attribution, not actual evidence at these low levels. If we say about 12,000 deaths per million every year in the UK from all causes, that’s 96,000 pa in London. So 1,000 deaths pa would be 1% of that, which sounds bad when it really isn’t. And it’s still an epidemiologists GUESS as regards attribution.

The real measure is not the claimed sensitivity, e.g., attributed to the selected causes of PM2.5/CO2/R number, but rather the end effect that is the supposed justification, natural life expectancy. As also with measured global average temperature, people dead from COVID (not “with COVID”).

Count the ACTUAL effect, not the change in the supposed cause.

nb: Dementia is becoming more of a problem because the other things are not killing us first any more. S’obvious.

e.g. Obviously, Khan’s 4,000 pa excess deaths in London because of pollution is overtly wrong, made-up-in-a-computer QALY lives, not death certificates with air pollution as a cause of death. Also because life expectancy is more or less the same across the UK, longest in London, and not much different in more polluted cities globally AT TWO &THREE TIMES the very low levels of PM2.5s we measure in London. Something doesn’t add up. There is fishy smell around the Mayor.

The guesses attributed by authority to an invisible catastrophe are wrong. Again.

And you CANNOT conflate hot spots and the central area with the rest of London. Because the activity density that creates these pollutants is MUCH lower.

Inter alia, also note how the reports about air quality describe how life expectancy has doubled in many cities AS IF THIS IS FROM AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION — NOT IT BLOOMIN’ ISN’T, in the main. INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING AS REGARDS ATTRIBUTION

It’s down to better sanitation, clean water, health care, adequate diets. etc . One more example of the tools of deception used by the UN and politicians like Khan, to justify their regressive measures. Deliberately contrived lies, created by corrupted academics, rewarded by politicians commissioning the fraud from the public purse.

We pay for their lies to be commissioned to further impoverish us, by their law. Based in what the facts show are lies.

CONCLUSION: In simple fact, that can be seen in the attached report and elsewhere, such as ONS data, once you get down to 20 or so PM2.5s make no measurable difference, so close to natural levels is it.

As we know, at these levels, any effort to further reduction can only tend asymptotically and increasingly expensively to background. There is no practical zero PM2.5 scenario and it’s NOT a linear no threshold (LNT) relationship. 10 is pretty good for a modern commercially active inland city. I wonder what the natural levels in the Persian Gulf are…..

Khan’s stories are a pack of lies in every statistic he uses. Lies about deaths, lies about the air quality reality, lies about the need to extend the zone from the central area to the circular roads, not just the extension to the whole GLC.

Lies, Lies, Lies. On every measure I have looked into, at any serious level of scrutiny. Again, it’s not the claimed cause we must be concerned about, but its real effects. And again, the levels in outer London are simply not a problem, because there are increasingly less cars, people and business activity per unit area. No problem to solve.

It’s obvious, except to Khan. And anyone who believes that the fraud of dishonest epidemiology for political purposes – “The Science we follow” – is justified by the need to reverse the progress of Western developed nations.

Not an honourable profession.

If its created in a model, by epidemiological attribution methods, it’s probably wrong, can never be right, and is usually done to support an economically regressive and/ or controlling purpose. Just ask questions about the basis of the attribution of cause to effect and check against what we have measured.


  • Francis King says:

    You may wish to check your values.

    Picking this example at random – – the PM 2.5 level is very variable, and often comes closer to 20-25 ug / m3. Even as high as 50 ug / m3. See in March 2023. Currently the limit is 25 ug / m3.

  • Brian R Catt says:

    JUst checked. ……….Yup, its 9. Same number I read the first time I researched the published data on this subject. Why would it be wrong. I’m a scientist, not an activist.

    Check it for yourself?

    The report value for London is obviously an average. Your’s appear to be spot extremes. Levels can also be safely higher if not sustained. That also means Its lower elsewhere, probably most of the less densely populated outer areas where Khan wants to extend it to, which is VERy low.

    Doing the full Rowlat Is also transparently partial so doesn’t help your case.

    AS noted above, in Beijing the average PM2.5 level is 30, but life expectancy is close to London’s at 82yrs. “High” levels are hundreds, as in more early industrial times with open fires in houses , etc. e.g. London in 1890. was over 600. Many inland locations that are undeveloped can be high tens. The WHO “safe levels” are simply another Agenda 21 based attack on private vehicles, nothing to do wit health , and, in particular, cost benefit. Londoners already paid, went to clean gas heating, have low emission vehicles woth ECUs, fuel injection, catalytic converters, WE already cleaned up. Spending more is very much diminishing retuns for at much greater expense. Finally, you quote PM levels without a proven causal link to health effects. If the action is not justified by the epidemiology.yoir basic. argument is without met. .THis does not equal or justify that. etc.

    E&OE – let me know if you find any of fact.


    BRian Catt CEng, CPhys.

  • Koa says:

    You are saying that increasing CO2 levers affecting the world’s climate is a lie, but why would people, expressly scientists (who are famous for caring about truth), lie about this? It instead seems that you are lying about this. This is not my first time writing this type of letter to a truth-denying organization. We already see the effects of climate change! All the hurricanes, rising sea levers, and melting polar ice. Just look at any trustworthy news site!

Leave a Reply