Written evidence submitted by Dr Robin Russell-Jones, Help Rescue the Planet (VTA0030)

How car manufacturers  replaced  one potent neurotoxin, lead,  with another PM2.5

In 1980, when  I was a junior hospital doctor living in Central London, I became aware of scientific studies showing a relationship between exposure to lead and lower IQ. I was not  prepared to expose  my children to unnecessary risks so in 1981 we moved to the country and I commuted to work for the next 35 years. I also invited to become the unpaid   Medical and Scientific Advisor to CLEAR, the campaign for Lead Free Air, and our activities led to the introduction of unleaded petrol, not only in the UK but throughout Europe and indeed globally. I became Chair of CLEAR in 1984, and we were successful in persuading the Thatcher Government to introduce catalytic convertors , a technology that was made possible only by the introduction of lead-free fuel as lead coats the platinum and renders the catalyst inoperative. (See Campaign for Lead Free Air Wikipedia)

In October 2011, the UN stated:

“Ridding the world of leaded petrol has resulted in $2.4 trillion in annual benefits, 1,2 million fewer premature deaths, higher overall intelligence and 58 million fewer crimes “ 

However there was a fly in the ointment : diesel powered cars represented only 5% of new cars sold in the UK during the eighties but they are mainly responsible for particulate pollution, and this poses dangers to health that are equal and in some cases worse than putting lead into petrol. In 1986 I gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities as follows :

“There is a strong correlation between levels of suspended particles in the atmosphere and infant mortality,  and clear evidence of particles aggravating disease among bonchitics, asthmatics, and cardiovascular patients “

I also presented recent US data to their Lordships showing higher rates of lung cancer in urban areas even amongst non-smokers.

You can imagine my concern therefore when the UK Government, in 1989,  floated the idea of  a tax-break in favour of  diesel fuel. I wrote to the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor Sir John Fairclough as follows :

Dear John

I read with amazement that the government is thinking of introducing a tax break in favour of diesel fuel on the grounds that it is environmentally friendly. From the point of view of fuel efficiency and hence global warming I agree this is true, but from every other point of view it is a disaster. Volume for volume, diesel is ten times more carcinogenic than leaded petrol, and a hundred times more than a car running on unleaded and fitted with a catalytic convertor. Furthermore diesel emissions are responsible for black smoke, and the soiling of buildings in urban areas. You only have to visit Italy or Greece, where diesel fuel is more widely used, to see the result. I hope it is not too late to prevent this lunatic proposal.

With best wishes

Robin

The tax-break idea was dropped and I thought that was the end of the matter. But you should never underestimate the short-sightedness  of Government when it comes to issues that impinge on public health and the environment.

In the nineties the European Community became concerned about climate change, but the car manufacturers did not wish to develop hydrogen powered or electric cars, so they cynically proposed diesel as a means of reducing emissions of CO2, without mentioning that other diesel pollutants would themselves contribute to the formation of other greenhouse gases such as ozone and nitrous oxide.

Governments all over Europe fell for this duplicity and then connived in rigging emissions tests so that the EU test cycle in the laboratory provided readings for both CO2 and NOx that were very different from actual emissions on the road : As a result UK cities are unable to comply with EU air quality standards, and the environmental advocacy group Client Earth  forced the UK Government to produce an action plan in March 2015. Having done next to nothing to improve air quality  over the past year, HMG was back in court in March 2016 behaving like a serial offender. Apart from anything else air pollution causes 40,000 premature deaths annually in the UK.

But the real concern relates to the dangers that diesel emissions pose to the unborn child and the effect that small particulates (PM2.5) and also NOx exert on the developing brain.

PM 2.5 are small enough to cross the placental barrier, and are strongly associated with a variety of negative outcomes including low birth weight, an effect that is without threshold. Furthermore the joint report by the two Royal Colleges, “Every Breath we Take” published in Februry  2016 (Ref 1), identified several studies linking exposure to particulates and NOx to delayed neurocognitive development and lower IQ in children Some of these studies show an IQ deficit between low and heavily polluted areas of approximately 4 !Q points, remarkably similar to the IQ deficit associated with lead.

However the story does not stop in Feb 2016. In March a paper by Margolis and co-workers (Ref 2) appeared on-line in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry which linked exposure to diesel fumes in pregnancy to mental disorders in children aged 9-11.The study was undertaken in New York and used DNA adducts of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in samples of cord blood taken at birth, and correlated the results with outcome in the offspring over the first 11 years of life. The data showed a strong correlation between high exposure to PAHs and mental disturbance such as ADHD, anxiety and depression. An accompagnying review article by Rauh and Magolis (Ref 3)  provides a chilling summary as to the severity of diesel pollution on children’s mental health, IQ and even brain structure, including significant reductions in white matter in those more highly exposed to PAH’s (Ref 4)

PAHs are derived almost exclusively from diesel. Smaller molecules are volatile and easily inhaled, whereas larger molecules are carried into the lungs on particulates, and particularly small particulates (PM 2.5) which can penetrate deep into the lung tissue.

Toxic metals like lead, PAH’s and small particulates like PM2.5 can all cross the placental barrier, designed to protect the unborn foetus from harm. Our indifference, or should one say negligence, has resulted in the replacement of one potent neurotoxin, lead, with another PM2.5, derived in places like London mainly from diesel powered vehicles. It is equally dangerous, equally insidious and equally deserving of a total ban.

In response to an article in the Sunday Times, the following letter was published on April 3 entitled “Toxic Agenda” (The words highlighted in bold were omitted from the published letter):

“It appears diesel exhaust fumes are linked to psychological problems in children, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression and anxiety (“Diesel fumes poison babies in the womb”, News last week ).

There is also data showing an IQ deficit of approximately 4 points among children highly exposed to particulates and oxides of nitrogen. I fear that evidence of the deleterious effects of diesel pollution on children’s health will escalate over the coming decade so that Many parents will prefer to bring up their children in the country, as did I in 1981, to avoid exposure to another potent neurotoxin, lead.

Meanwhile it is tragic that the Chancellor’s “budget for the next generation” did nothing to discourage the use of diesel : 10p a litre on the fuel would raise £1.7bn—enough to fill the hole left by the abandoned disability cuts

It is significant that no one wrote to dispute the statements in this letter which clearly has profound implications for public health

So when the Chancellor imposed a tax on sugar in his March budget, why was there no equivalent tax on diesel which costs the NHS an equivalent amount ; £20 billion per annum according to the joint report by the two medical Royal Colleges. In his budget speech, George Osborne claimed that he did not want to say to his children:

“We knew that there was a problem, but we ducked the difficult decisions and did nothing”.

Well I have to tell the Chancellor, and indeed the whole Cabinet, that on the subject of air pollution their  children will conclude that they have been an abject failure.

Joint Report by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health : “Every Breath we ake” Feb 2016

Margolis A et al 2016

Longitudinal effects of prenatal exposure to air pollutants on self-regulatory capacities and ocial competence

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Published on line March 2016)

Rauh V Margolis A 2016

Research review : Environmental exposures, neurodevelopment, and child mental health—new paradigms for the study of brain and behavioural effects.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Published on line March 2016)

Peterson B et al 2015

Effects of prenatal exposure to air pollutants (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) on the development of brain white matter, cognition, and behavior in later childhood.

Journal of the American medical association Psychiatry 2015: 57

Published on-line March 2015; corrected April 20 2015

5 May 2016