In London, Children’s Lungs Grow Faster as Traffic Pollution Falls

– credit, Fas Khan via Unsplash

A visceral reminder of the dangers of air pollution comes now via an uplifting study which found lung development in children was faster in London’s ultra low-emissions zone (ULEZ).

It compared children between the ages of 6 and 9 living in Central London’s ULEZ with those living in the nearby suburb of Luton. Just over 3,400 agreed to participate.

The study period extended to before the implementation of the ULEZ in 2019, and found that as exhaust emissions like nitrogen dioxide diminished, the advance in children’s lung capacity quickened.

Children were tested for lung function on a device that measures how much air an individual can forcefully breathe out in one second, a measure for lung power, development, and recovery in the case of lung cancer patients.

PPM measurements of exhaust particles fell faster in London than in Luton over the study period, and the scientists at Queen Mary University observed a concurrent acceleration in the development of London children’s lung power, which was recorded as an additional 233 milliliters of air breathed into the device per year, compared with 223 milliliters observed in children from Luton.

At the outset of the study, Luton had less air pollution in the city, and it was the Luton children whose lungs were developing faster. 4 years after the implementation of the ULEZ, the Londoners had bridged the gap with their suburban peers.

Lung development is a key predictor of aspiratory problems in life. The study also found that in Central London, the proportion of children with impaired lung function fell from 14% to 9% as pollution levels dropped. Such impairments may include asthma, and bear consequences for health later in life.

In general, even though many cities regularly sit far above the World Health Organization’s recommendations for limits on fine particulate matter, cities around the world are reducing air pollution and London stands among them.

In March, GNN reported that 19 out of 100 cities worldwide surveyed for air quality were found to have substantially improved since 2010. The 19 included several of what could be called megalopolis-type cities like Hong Kong and Beijing. Another 7 on Mainland China achieved large pollution reductions.San Francisco, Warsaw, Bangkok, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Rome, Heidelberg, Berlin, and Paris round out the list. In London, Children’s Lungs Grow Faster as Traffic Pollution Falls
Read More........

In London, Children’s Lungs Grow Faster as Traffic Pollution Falls

– credit, Fas Khan via Unsplash

A visceral reminder of the dangers of air pollution comes now via an uplifting study which found lung development in children was faster in London’s ultra low-emissions zone (ULEZ).

It compared children between the ages of 6 and 9 living in Central London’s ULEZ with those living in the nearby suburb of Luton. Just over 3,400 agreed to participate.

The study period extended to before the implementation of the ULEZ in 2019, and found that as exhaust emissions like nitrogen dioxide diminished, the advance in children’s lung capacity quickened.

Children were tested for lung function on a device that measures how much air an individual can forcefully breathe out in one second, a measure for lung power, development, and recovery in the case of lung cancer patients.

PPM measurements of exhaust particles fell faster in London than in Luton over the study period, and the scientists at Queen Mary University observed a concurrent acceleration in the development of London children’s lung power, which was recorded as an additional 233 milliliters of air breathed into the device per year, compared with 223 milliliters observed in children from Luton.

At the outset of the study, Luton had less air pollution in the city, and it was the Luton children whose lungs were developing faster. 4 years after the implementation of the ULEZ, the Londoners had bridged the gap with their suburban peers.

Lung development is a key predictor of aspiratory problems in life. The study also found that in Central London, the proportion of children with impaired lung function fell from 14% to 9% as pollution levels dropped. Such impairments may include asthma, and bear consequences for health later in life.

In general, even though many cities regularly sit far above the World Health Organization’s recommendations for limits on fine particulate matter, cities around the world are reducing air pollution and London stands among them.

In March, GNN reported that 19 out of 100 cities worldwide surveyed for air quality were found to have substantially improved since 2010. The 19 included several of what could be called megalopolis-type cities like Hong Kong and Beijing. Another 7 on Mainland China achieved large pollution reductions.San Francisco, Warsaw, Bangkok, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Rome, Heidelberg, Berlin, and Paris round out the list. In London, Children’s Lungs Grow Faster as Traffic Pollution Falls
Read More........

School phone ban one year on: our student survey reveals mixed feelings about its success

One year after the government banned cellphones from schools to help students focus and reduce distractions in class, we’re beginning to see how it has been implemented and how successful it’s been.

As part of that process, our new research asked young people about the ban. Unsurprisingly, they had a lot to say.

Schools around the world, including in Australia, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, China and parts of the United States, have implemented similar bans. The guiding principle everywhere has been to help students do better in school.

When New Zealand’s ban came into effect in April 2024, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said it was time to cut the distractions so kids could learn and achieve.

But studies have shown these bans often don’t work as planned. For example, recent research from the UK involving over 1,200 students found no significant difference in academic grades or wellbeing between schools with strict phone bans and those with more relaxed policies.

With so many questions at the time of the ban about how it would be enforced, we wanted to hear what was going on in schools and what young people really thought. We spoke to 77 young people aged 12 to 18 from 25 schools around the country. Some liked the bans, some didn’t and some weren’t sure.

Mixed feelings

Many students had mixed feelings about the bans. Some admitted the bans helped reduce distractions and gave them a break from using their phones. As one explained,

otherwise, we’ll be on our phone all day, all afternoon, all night, and it won’t be healthy for our minds.

But other students said the ban had created new problems.

First, some students felt stressed and anxious when they couldn’t contact their parents or caregivers during the day. Second, they said the rules weren’t always clear or fair. Some teachers were strict, others weren’t. And sometimes, teachers used their phones in class, but students couldn’t.

That perceived double standard – where teachers can use phones but students can’t – left many of our respondents feeling frustrated and unfairly treated. In some cases, it even made them more secretive about their phone use. One student said,

Even though we’re not allowed to use our phones, everyone is sneaky and uses it anyway.

A lack of consultation

A lot of students said they weren’t asked what they thought before the bans were introduced. They felt as if adults made the rules without asking them or listening to them. One of our interviewees said,

It feels like they just ban everything, thinking it will fix the problem.

Many didn’t understand the purpose of the ban, especially since they still have to use laptops and other technology in class.

Recent research found more than 80% of students in Aotearoa New Zealand say technology in class is distracting – not just phones.

Already, some students have found clever ways around the phone ban. At one Auckland school, students started using walkie-talkies instead of phones to stay connected with their peers.

Examples like this show bans don’t always change behaviour the way they’re intended to. It can simply make students feel as though adults underestimate how tech-savvy they really are.

Young people as active problem solvers

The young people in our research offered some alternatives to the ban.

Many suggested allowing phones at break and lunch times. That way, they could stay connected without interrupting class. They also said adults needed to model healthy digital habits, not just set the rules.

Based on student responses, it does appear that learning and teaching how to use phones in healthy ways would be more helpful than banning them altogether.

Research from the Digital Wellness Lab supports this balanced approach, emphasising skill building over restriction. But for this to work, adults need support too. Teachers and parents need training and resources to help guide young people – and should also be surveyed on how they feel about the ban.

Banning phones doesn’t fix the bigger issue of helping young people to use technology safely and responsibly. If schools really want to support students, they need to move beyond one-size-fits-all rules.

Our research shows young people aren’t just passive users of technology. They’re active problem solvers. They want to be part of the conversation – and part of the solution.

This would involve replacing top-down bans with meaningful conversations involving young people and adults to build fair and practical digital guidelines, where everyone benefits.The Conversation

Cara Swit, Associate professor, School of Health Sciences, University of Canterbury; Aaron Hapuku, Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, University of Canterbury; Helena Cook, Lecturer, School of Social and Cultural Studies, University of Canterbury, and Jennifer Smith, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, University of Canterbury

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........