Talk:Smog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... were nicknamed as "London Peculiars".

The only hits google finds to this term is from Wikipedia and references to Wikipedia, I think this is bogus. I'll replace it with pea-souper.

I think you must have typoed: I got 14,500 hits on London peculiars, though they are odd (peculiar) government zones outside the City, so the specific relevance to smog baffles me. With regard to the death toll from the 1952 London smog, Britannica, Encarta and other sources place the toll at "over" or "about" 4000, not 12,000. (Search the encyclopedias for "1952 London smog".

Oh no, I've heard of London Peculiars – possibly the name of the government zones was being punned on. Lack of G-hits is hardly a surprise - they're not a recent occurrence and it's a vernacular phrase. Pls keep an eye out when reading (non-electronic!) literature of that era. JackyR 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Many local governments are still unwilling to accept the realities of smog.

Maybe, but it seems too general, too much like editorializing. I took the sentence out. Dreamyshade

Contents 1 Haze from land clearing in Indonesia 2 Merge proposal 3 'Smog' referring to people from Middlesbrough 4 Photochem Smog 5 is this a prank? 6 Conflict or Convergence? 7 aviation smog 8 Aviation Smog

[edit] Haze from land clearing in Indonesia

Was removed for lack of evidence.

Actually there is an abundance of evidence streching back 30 years.

Other than satellite imagery showing hotspots and smoke coming over, there is also widespread recognition of the problem by almost all parties involved.

There are also various parties set up to deal with this as well as transnational agencies and agreements.

Quantifiable losses can also run up to the billions.

See haze for background reading.

I agree, its a legitimate addition. Here for example is one BBC news story on Indonesia forest fire smog triggering a state of emergency in neighbouring Malaysia. In previous years I've seen stories including satellite photos that show the individual clusters of fires and coutrywide blanket of smoke over Indonesia. The smogs have even been blamed for modifying El Niño weather patterns. -- Solipsist 17:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose that the article Photochemical smog which is just a stub should be merged here. This article includes more on photochemical smog than London Smog anyway.--NHSavage 07:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now done the merge. This needs a bit of work to clean it up and better distinguish the 2 types of smog which are chemically and meteorologically distint. Another thing I'll do when I get a Round tuit.--NHSavage 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Smog' referring to people from Middlesbrough

I've re-added the bit referring to 'Smog' being a nickname for people on Teesside. As it's an increasingly used euphemism for people from Middlesbrough and Teesside, I think it should stay (it's only one line, linking to another page). :-|

I remember the difficulty people had trying to add 'Mackem' (Sunderland) and 'Monkey Hanger' (Hartlepool). I know these terms have not been heard of in the United States, but they are in use in Britain. After all, we did invent English. ;-)

These are terms that started off as light ridicule and have then come into common use, being adopted by the people from each area.

Ian (Beefy_SAFC)

It was never removed – just moved down the article to "Cultural references", where it belongs. So I'm going to remove what is now a duplication in the first para. Please actually read an article before editing it! Happy wiki-ing JackyR 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photochem Smog

More on this needs to be written - the way it forms (actual equations) and more health effects I think. Should it be separated again? As it is different from "smog". Maybe then stub the photochem smog, with "Expert Needed".

[edit] is this a prank?

It was a common sight to find, once the pea-souper had lifted, that the statue of Nelson on top of his column in Trafalgar Square had been painted, usually pink, overnight.

one would think there would be documentation of such a common sight somewhere. perhaps not a photograph, but a newspaper report or something. maybe it's true, but it certainly sounds outrageous and ought to be verified. 65.95.37.193 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well yes I would have thought that was a prank too. On the other hand, the sentence was introduced in this edit and the other points made there look good. As are that anons other edit. So perhaps it is true and we should assume good faith. I can't find any web resources to back it up, but given that it refers to events prior to the 1950s that might not be surprising. You could add a {{Template:Fact}} to it, instead of deleting it. -- Solipsist 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged more of that edit with "Fact". I strongly suspect the contributor confused 1957 with the 1952 smog. The BBC timeline with the 1952 smog mentions significant fogs in 1952, 1956, 1959 and 1962. It says nothing about a severe fog in 1957, which is odd if that fog prompted new legislation or enforcement. Further, the Clean Air Act 1956 was just that. Smokeless zones were being created in 1956-7, so can't have been influenced by an event in December 1957. JackyR | Talk 10:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

re solipsist: it's certainly possible, even plausible, that some dedicated prankster took advantage of heavy smog to repaint the statue, but it's among the best-known and most visible monuments in london, is it not? one would have to think that egregious vandalism would have left some trace in the public consciousness—unless it really was such a common sight that nobody paid any attention to it. i mean, you'd think the city authorities would, i don't know, post a guard at the base of the column with orders to prevent suspicious characters with paint pots and brushes from climbing it.

if the author's intentions were honest, i'd bet that s/he heard a hypothetical scenario ("you know, the smog is [or was] so bad that someone could easily paint lord nelson's statue pink and get away long before anyone noticed") and confused it with a description of reality. i really do think some documentation should be provided before such an outrageous assertion goes in the article—especially since wikipedia scrapers don't seem to pick up those little flags of unreliability. 65.95.37.193 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, am inclined to thinking the faith may have been good, but the info isn't. Completely agree that, if this were a common event, it should be in the folklore of teh object, like the dinner party held on top of the column before Nelson was installed. Couldn't find any ref to pink paint in BBC and London Assembly articles about the recent renovation, which is the sort of thing you'd expect to be mentioned there. Remove till contributor comes back with a ref. JackyR | Talk 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree that if Nelson's column had been painted pink a few times, it would have been mentioned in The Times and The Telegraph in their day. Its just that if it was over 50 years ago, I can't be sure there would be a contemporary web site discussing those events for Google to pick up. The sum total of that anon's edits generally struck me as being the contributions of an older than average editor who was writing from recollection. Some details may be completely wrong but they may have been writing in good faith. Perhaps it wasn't Nelson's column that was painted, but rather the Albert Memorial or some other statue.

Nevertheless, it doesn't much matter. The Nelson's column bit doesn't really add much to our understanding of smog (nor Nelson's column) so it is just as good having it removed from the article. And if someone finds a citation for it, it can be reinstated with references. If it was intended as a prank, it was a somewhat strange one. -- Solipsist 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and posting a guard at the foot of Nelson's column to prevent vandalism may not have helped... Romanes eunt domus :) -- Solipsist 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict or Convergence?

i think it needs more explanation to know the ways how to reduce the negative effects of this kind of air pollution. do we need to do individually or help each other to prevent this kind of pollution.

today we are suffering.

but what we are doing?

oh yes doing nothing!

• • forgive my presumption at making an executive decision to remove 18 empty lines from this comment (2 from between "pollution" and "today," 9 from between "suffering" and "but," and 7 from between "doing" and "oh." I found them to be ostentatious. Though I suppose my explanation has, in fact, added four lines back to the length. I revise my redaction total to 14 - PMJ

[edit] aviation smog

"Aviation Smog acts like an 'ice curtain' that is being weaved around the world: It filters the sunlight, diminishing the quantity and altering the quality of the Sun's radiation that reaches the surface of Earth."

My cynical side wants to remark rather snidely that if this were a real problem, the cure for global warming would be subsidized and/or mandatory long-distance flights for every man, woman, and child in the developed world. We can reverse the warming and save the ice caps if we produce enough high-altitude smog! Come on, people! We can beat this thing!

And remember, when you're flying to pollute the skies to save the earth, Fly Delta: they're on the verge of collapse, and those of us in their hub cities would like those airport jobs to stick around! ~_^

-Paul from Cincinnati

[edit] Aviation Smog

I do not agree with defining contrails as smog. While they have potentially a climate impact I have never seen them defined as smog in any publication. Please show the use of this of this in a published work. If you cannot I suggest we should delete this whole section.--NHSavage 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)