I was shocked when I downloaded air quality data from my locality.

Both PM 2.5 and PM 10 concentrations have doubled in the past three years and show an upward trend

Trend to wood burning stoves?

It's all they Londoners shaking the dust of the city off.

There is a worrying increase in particulates pollution in my town over the last few years,

Is my town any different from anywhere else?

attached an overall plot with the smoothed mean. looks like an
increase in the mean from 20 to around 30 at times over the 4 years,

the increase in winter peaks looks more substantial, attached
"PM10_winter.pdf" is a box-and-whisker plot of the quartiles (minimum,
25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, maximum) of the winter
values from December through to February each winter. There looks like
a big increase in the 75th percentile and the maximum

here is an explanation of the plot type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot


also attached a plot "PM10_summer.pdf" for comparison, values are a
bit more stable although definitely increasing. (not on GBF yet)


the increases in the mean winter values and the mean summer values
over the 4 years are both statistically significant i.e. unlikely to
be due to chance fluctuations

In the UK degradation of air quality is guaranteed as a result of energy policies. A 2009 energy report confirmed the combustion of biomass would add £billions to UK health and environmental costs with cost based on anticipated hazardous pollution levels and biomass energy production far below current reality. Subsequent lobbying meant allowable combustion PM pollution levels increased by 50% per GJ becoming 30 times higher than equivalent gas and NOX by 300%. The anticipated biomass usage increases by a factor of 10 in a recent Gov report with obvious further impact consequences.
At a recent clean energy conference our PM praised the use of straw for energy production but ignored the reality that straw presents special air pollution problems. High chlorine, nitrogen and sulphur content is a precursor to formation of serious hazards in the emissions. Sulphur dioxide is a special external damage concern and straw combustion is scheduled to create SO2 burden per unit of useful power out 70 times higher than equivalent gas. A recent bioenergy strategy document states the need for a 65% increase in the plough back of agricultural waste to condition the soil and reduce our reliance on fossil fuel based fertiliser. This brings impact on straw sustainability and adds to energy policy concerns.
A report published by the Environment Agency confirms that use of straw for energy production can increase GHG creation to a level 35% higher than equivalent fossil fuel. Denmark reports “loose” emissions regulations to allow use of straw combustion , they also report the highest incidence of cancer in the World. Could there be a link?
I highlight straw combustion impact because it displays the failures to embrace common sense and BAT in order to minimise air quality degradation. It questions the quality of advice given to our decision makers, the motivation for their advice and the reasoning of our decision makers especially with regard to “clean” energy.
Germany has far more stringent emissions regs. Compare EfW plant pollution output, UK incinerator/EfW pollution volume is typically 4000 cubic metres per tonne higher than German equivalent with UK hazardous content far higher. These plants are often positioned adjacent to conurbations and even placed upwind creating further concerns.
RHI will automatically bring air quality problems with increase in biomass burning where cleaner alternatives should be employed. I note a sponsored article on the role of biomass recommends that factories and farms with access to a variety of waste material should consider biomass boilers.
We surely need serious scrutiny of burning proposals and all the consequences resulting from our energy decisions. I realise this forum is basically geared to domestic energy issues but feel we should be aware of the hazards at all levels and size of emissions production.
One point is the fact that if Steamy is experiencing air quality problems then we are “doomed” because hazardous fine particles are known to easily carry 200km before grounding.
Tony – The above is your fault for disturbing my GBF hibernation by again raising a very thought provoking question. Rgds Brian

This is from a monitor station situated on a nine storey building in the centre of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Data is measured particulate pollution from traffic and ship emisions in the harbour.

The spike is dust from Sahara which comes with a hot wind known as the Calima.

And we can't blame Mr. Milligan: he told us he was ill.

Hmmm. So what's\ this all about then?

http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/

And, after a night dreaming about it, you can make a map.
This one is the PM2.5s
And it looks like Devon is causing the problem

Edit: Just looked at the number and the colour code and it seems that agriculture is the real problem, shall see if I can change the scale coding to make it red for bad and green for good.
Still think that Devon is a problem though

And now PM10s

Steamy- Theoretically Cornwall should enjoy good air quality possibly among the best in the UK . Transboundary impact appears minimal and wind rose data would indicate likely level of pollution contribution from Devon. I note the Scottish annual PM10 average is detailed at 18 micrograms per cubic metre with PM 2.5 average 12. I would have thought your air quality should compare favourably with Scotland.
The Air Quality Strategy document for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland indicates man made particulate pollution will cost some £14.7 billion per year by 2020, the document also refers to the report that there is no safe limit for particulate pollution which confirms the need is reduction. Our energy decisions will sadly add to the problem especially with the recent decision to increase dirty renewable production by a factor of 10. Choosing to subsidise dirty renewables is shown to create fundamental pollution per TWh of useful power per year equating to exhaust emissions from diesel traffic travelling 35 million km/day. We are already under threat of serious EU fines for failing to reduce air quality damage so why deliberately subsidise air quality degradation knowing it will result in damage creating further cost implications.
Combustion energy processes create constant 24/7 pollution but traffic impact is cyclic with low level periods, we demonise traffic pollution but appear to ignore the full impact energy decisions.
Air strategy doc. link
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7169/7169.pdf

Brian, that's the weirdest download I've ever had. It comes out (here at least) with the same page shown on opposite sides of the page, with one version the right way up and the other upside down!

(Sorted by copying and pasting the url.)

The red line is the flow of life-giving money brought in by all they incomers.