The research study shows that a "minimum" distance of 50 metres should be maintained between petrol stations and housing, and 100 metres for "especially vulnerable" facilities such as hospitals, health centres, schools and old people's homes. "Ideally, the 100 metre distance should be respected in plans for building new houses," says Doval.
The researchers propose carrying out this study at new construction areas in which it is planned to build these kinds of facilities. However, petrol stations are not the only source of emission of these pollutants.
-----D - I was arguing with the a friend's friend on FB recently
He dismissed incidental costs to society of use of products.
If it is not embedded into a standard product price, then apparently it is a fairy tale.
And since the 'cradle to grave' cost of product cannot be precisely measured, then approximating it is spurious.
I pointed out that standard taxing is totally arbitrary, and a 'sin tax' like I proposed would much closer to an accurate assessment of using a product.
With 100 buck barrels of oil upon us again, folks will begin to agitate for lower fuel taxes again.
I say DOUBLE it. That still does not reflect the cost in urban areas of fuel use.
With public health care, the fiscal budget picks up the tab for anything we do not sensibly deter at the taxation level instead. In other words, we pay indirectly via hiked taxes or increased debt anyway!
Without public health care, the economy still absorbs the costs by loss of productivity. Money spent on health care is money not spent elsewhere.
Perhaps a spartan rather than thriving health care sector for preventable (and delayable) conditions is more desirable?
