People who live near busy roads are more likely to develop dementia, new research has found. For the cohort study, scientists in Canada examined health data on some 6.6 million adults in Ontario over 12 years, and, by looking at their postcodes, divided them into groups according to how far they lived from “a major thoroughfare with medium to large traffic capacity”. Once they had adjusted the figures for various factors, including preexisting illnesses, and whether the subjects lived in urban or rural areas, they found those whose homes were within 50 metres of a busy road were 7% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia than those who lived at least 300 metres away. Traffic pollution contains a number of damaging toxins, including nitrogen oxide. However, the study has proved no causative link and has clear limitations: for instance, it was based on where people lived at a point in time before the study began; we know nothing about the subsequent exposure to pollution. (The Week Jan 13, 2017).
Thus the case against Big Oil grows and grows. We will always need oil, but hopefully not in the huge quantities we are recklessly taking from the planet. The demand for oil has provoked so many wars, coups and invasions it would take a book to enumerate them all. Worst of all is the affect of burning tons of oil every day upon the environment, a fact agreed upon by all except those with financial interest in the status quo. These people have now come to power in the US, but they will pass, be rightly swept away like those who were so certain that the Earth was the centre of the universe all those years ago. Hopefully, this will happen before Miami and other low- lying cities, disappear under the sea. Meanwhile, we are told that the toxins in the burnt oil may be causing dementia among those constantly by traffic fumes. Common sense tells us this could be quite true, but don’t jump to conclusions, blah, blah. Come on, get real!
In the long term, the rise of electric cars and improvements to public transport will considerably reduce traffic exhaust fumes. But its not good enough to be optimistic long term, something has to be done now.
Hope lies in the mayors of our major cities, which all across the developed world, tend to be more progressive and ecologist-leaning than our national leaders. Low-emissions zones should be expanded and enforced more aggressively. In particular, diesel ought to be taxed more highly because it produces carbon monoxide. City buses could run on hydrogen fuel cells or hybrid engines- something which London has done very well, but other cities are yet to catch up. Many major streets should be pedestrianised, which would encourage people to walk and not use cars.
More significantly, there needs to be a move away from extreme suburbia. Canada is notorious for this, with vast urban sprawl contributing to ecological damage and higher per capita carbon emissions. In the North American imagination, high dense living means horrible high-rise towers. But that needn’t be the case. In cities across Europe, many people live in flats that are just four or five stories high. In London, the wealthiest boroughs, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, are also amongst the most densely populated. Urban living can be very attractive, provided enough investment is made in it.
There’s also the fiscally conservative case to be made for traffic exhaust reduction and greater densification. Pollution is expensive, whether its the direct costs of cleaning a dirty city, or the indirect costs of premature deaths due to poor air quality. Cleaner cities attract investors and tourists, so spending money on improving the environment is hardly money down the drain. Also, high-dense areas tend to be more productive, because there is a greater specialisation of labour.
As for densification, public expenditure is more efficient when spend on a high dense area. Take transport for instance. Its cheaper to build and maintain a road network if people are living closer together. Riskier investments can be made, knowing there is less of a chance of lower demand.
Finally, densification makes areas more interesting. In a low-populated area, the amenities tend to be pretty generic: a convenience store, a church, a doctor’s surgery etc. In a high-dense populated area, retail and services become more varied: stores that cater to a minority ethnic or religious group, specialist restaurants, premium retailers tend to be based in high-dense areas, or simply unusual shops like shops that sell clothes for short people, or antique shops for instance.