‘Clean Air’ and ‘Safe to Breath Air’

It was in 1956 that Parliament passed the first purpose-built ‘Clean Air Act’. It was not the first Act passed to stop the air being filled with industrial poisons, but it was the first to generalise prohibition of emitting smoke from industrial chimneys into the atmosphere. It was a direct result of the Great Smog of London:



I have no doubt that the supporters of these Acts genuinely thought that their proposals would result in ‘clean air’. After all, the Acts would not have been called ‘Clean Air Acts’ had they not been expected to produce ‘clean air’.

But what does the word ‘CLEAN’ mean when applied to the atmosphere?

I suppose that it would be possible to seal a room, pump out the existing air in that room, and fill it with around 70% pure nitrogen, 30% pure oxygen and about 70% additional purified water vapour. Or should that be about 70% purified water vapour, 21% pure nitrogen and 9% pure oxygen? Would that be ‘clean’ air?


I find it weird that Parliament can be so inexact about the laws that it passes. The ‘Clean Air Acts’ were misnamed. They should have been called ‘Air Safe to Breath Acts’.

Had that been so, smokers might now not be being persecuted by the idiotic laws about ‘clean air’ in pubs, clubs etc. ‘Clean air’ cannot possibly exist, except in a laboratory.


It is clear beyond doubt that the Zealots are crackers. Why? Because they actually believe that tiny differences, even if supported by evidence, matter an awful lot. For example, I have figures for cot deaths in 2010. Live births in that year were about 700,000. Cot deaths were about 130. According to studies of about 57 of these deaths, there was a correlation with smoking. WOW!!! But it is just as likely that those deaths occurred among the poorest of people who could not afford adequate warmth, etc, Etc, etc, etc.

The real point is that Tobacco Control is based upon tiny differences, and that TC alone chooses the differences.


I think that it is incredibly important that the UK should detach itself from the UN. Only if it does so can it become a beacon of freedom. That detachment is much more important than the EU.




%d bloggers like this: