ASK any Scot what the island of Islay is famous for and the answer is whisky.
An ecologist might mention the migration of Canada geese. But people are now
beginning to include 鈥渢he Limpet鈥�, a small power station generating electricity
from the waves that roll in from the Atlantic. Michelle Knott eloquently
described this development in wave power recently (快猫短视频, 23
September, p 16).
At 5.95 pence per kilowatt-hour, Limpet鈥檚 electricity is pricey, so I asked
energy minister Helen Liddell if the Department of Trade and Industry will
continue to support the scheme. Liddell replied that the DTI supports the
development of wave energy, including the Limpet scheme, through its New and
Renewable Energy Programme. 鈥淚 believe that the immense potential for wave
energy resource in the seas around us amply justifies this effort,鈥� said
Liddell. She added, however, that we shall need to be patient. It could be that
a breakthrough in wave energy generation in terms of scale of production and
price will not come until after 2010. 鈥淭he great potential dividends justify the
government taking a long-term view of this important resource,鈥� she
emphasised.
For a government, a long-term view and an active approach are two very
different matters. I would like to see more enthusiasm about the Limpet.
Advertisement
CITY air pollution usually contains tiny particles of dirt. According to Nell
Boyce, Americans are now very wary of particles with a diameter of less than 2.5
micrometres, or PM2.5 as they are known. The US government鈥檚 Health Effects
Institute concludes that they are more dangerous than the larger PM10s. The
PM2.5s are by-products of combustion and may contain carcinogens. American air
quality standards are set for both PM2.5 and PM10 particles but Europe only has
a standard for PM10s.
Roy Harrison of Birmingham University, who advises the British government on
these matters, asserts that separate monitoring is unnecessary, as in Britain,
PM2.5 levels rise and fall with PM10 levels. However, Tim Brown of the National
Society for Clean Air disagrees, saying that researchers need to know more about
particle composition. So I asked health minister Yvette Cooper who is right,
Harrison or Brown.
Well, both, she replied. The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards recently
published a review Airborne Particles: what is the appropriate
measurement on which to base a standard? It concluded that the major part
of the toxic component of particulate air pollution was likely to be found in
particles less than 1 micrometre in diameter and that this fraction would be
better represented by PM2.5 than by PM10. However, in the epidemiological
studies undertaken in Britain so far, PM2.5 and PM10 have been found to be
closely correlated and their associations with health effects inseparable.
Therefore the panel concluded that PM10 is a good measure for the components
of particulate air pollution that affect health. It recommended that Britain鈥檚
research programme should be aimed at better definition of the toxic component,
Cooper said.
She went on to say that research sponsored by various government departments
and the British Medical Research Council has addressed this issue. A good deal
of research is also under way in the US, and officials in Britain鈥檚 Department
of Health are monitoring this. However, further research into the toxic fraction
of the airborne particles is needed, she added.
What is clear to me and many other MPs is that public interest in
particulates is increasing.
