This article reports on a study which I think used the same data source. Appears to suggest particle size might be important...

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/1152942-fine-particulate-air-pollution-linked-with-increased-autism-risk/

"Exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with autism during pregnancy, but not before or after, the study found. And during the pregnancy, the third trimester specifically was significantly associated with an increased risk. Little association was found between air pollution from larger-sized particles (PM10-2.5) and autism."

This report on PM2.5 in the UK..
http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1212141150_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf

..appears to suggest PM2.5 levels are about 40% higher in winter than summer.

So putting the two together, I wondered if there was any data showing that babies born in say late winter/early spring are at increased risk of Autisim in the UK?

Much as I hate quoting the Daily Mail...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2001407/Marchs-child--woe-Babies-born-spring-likely-develop-wide-range-diseases-autumn-children.html

"Spring babies are at greater risk of a host of ills, including asthma, autism, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease."

but that blames it on lack of Vit D.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: bella</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: orangemannot</cite>It is entirely obvious even to a blind man on a galloping Horse, that the increased levels of Autism are much more likely, if not absolutely definately likely, to be due to heightened perceptions in respect of the Autisic spectrum, and the undoubted benefits of getting a child "statemented" however marginal the condition.</blockquote>

Mr Orangemannot, please go and read the report (the full published one).

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206187/

You might find it a little hard going (I am assuming that you do not have a biological sciences or statistical background) but the excellent summary and tables will help you get there. The study is a remarkable one and a model of good practice. They give a clear account of the strengths and weaknesses of their study. I am sure you haven't read the report because your statement concerning the rise in frequency in the diagnosis of autism, made with such triumphant and embarrassing certainty, is irrelevant to the study's aims, methods and conclusions. So, for those of you who don't have the time or inclination to go to the primary sources but consider air pollution an important topic for this forum, just a very quick summary:-

In 1989 a large cohort of female American nurses (111,643) across 17 states were enrolled in a prospective follow-up (every other year) study to examine, amongst other things, fertility rates, pregnancy outcomes and the health and well being of their offspring. 246 children with confirmed features of autism and 1174 matched controls were available for the study by 2007. The report gives full details of total numbers and how these subjects were selected. Based on the mother's place of residence in pregnancy subjects were assigned to a polluted/less polluted category. After allowing for the sex of the child, income, maternal age and pregnancy events known to be associated with the occurrence of autism they found that living in a more polluted atmosphere DURING PREGNANCY, and especially during the final three months was associated with an increased frequency of autism. As they point out they are not the only ones to have identified such an association.</blockquote>

Meh!
"theres lies, dammned lies and then theres statistics.
I.e. Statistics Can generally by made to prove whatever outcome is sought.
Not saying there is not a corrolation, just questioning its significence.
With Wind blown dust & pollen, wild fires, volcanos etc etc.
(Many Nurses also smoke, but i presume this was taken into account?)
How sanatized a world do you feel we should live in?
Is nature allowed to be natural?
PS
Educated to BSc level(Engineering too!, not Micky Mouse Social sciences), dropped out during final year, undoubtedly had the ability, merely lacked the inclination (wanted to study Humanities, but was dyslixic, before IT became fashionable btw)
cheers
Marcus

Here is wishing Mikeee5 a sucessful resolutions and an end to the smoke and fume problems in 2015. Installing to minimum regulations does not safely disperse the products of combustion away in every situation. NB Eho stand up and take note!

Thank you for the well wishes LJ2. The preparation for court is almost complete, I spoke to my solicitor last week and he thinks the case will be in about 6 weeks time. I have friends and family coming to court to stand as witnesses, let's hope it "blows" our way

Posted By: Mikeee5Environmental Health officer from my LA that hasn't been on my property when the fire is lit is going to be attending court as a witness in my neighbours defence

That should be an interest cross examination!

Apparently my neighbours are not employing a solicitor and will be representing themselves in court!

Will update the thread as things progress.


Mikeee5

Thanks Jo.

Unfortunately due to work commitments and preparation for court the 6 month time period has lapsed for my application to the ECOHR. However, I guess because there is a representative from my LA standing as a witness it will start the 6 month clock ticking again. Part of the application criteria for the ECOHR is to have exhausted all legal avenues, which will be the case here if I loose the battle in court!

Mikeee5

I would call the EHO as a witness yourself and get you barrister to ask him when he visited your property and what he saw and about testing fuel, I reckon he won't show!

but if he does not the opportunity will be lost

What sort of court is it, one with 3 magistrates?

I had to do jury service once, dreadful experience. People are full of prejudice and have no concept of evidence.

No experience of civil cases in a County Court. I think it may be just the one Judge, and possibly they may be an expert in the field.
May be worth you taking a trip down there and viewing a few cases so you get a feel for how it works.
And remember that they preside on what the accused is charged with, so peripheral evidence may not always help.

When I was a reckless teenager and knew I was going to get a driving ban, I went to the court with my Mother (needed someone to get me home). Everyone was very pleasant. Previously when I went with some friends who were witnesses (we were in out early 20's), they treated us like dirt. The only good thing to come out of that case was I called the policeman a lier, and accused his boss, who was prosecuting the case, of twisting the truth and misrepresenting my reply. A few weeks later that Chief of Police got busted by his own force fro drink driving. All I got was a £40 fine and a speeding endorsement.

Ignorance is bliss

lol, that was me.

I think local press. Call them and tell them whats happening, they might do a story in your favour, which could influence the right people.

Sorry about that bot, Juggling work and bit pushed!

If I notify the press and TV would they attend court?

I suspect that national press wouldnt take an interest to attend the court themselves, the local press yes. The national press will be scanning local news stories anyway to see if theres anything interesting for them.

Maybe try contacting an enviromental journalist directly, Google search to see if there is one has previously taken an interest in wood smoke pollution problems.

With Twitter you can contact enviro journalists directly.