Public exposure to significantly elevated levels of particulate matter (PM) as a result of major fires at industrial sites is a worldwide problem. Our paper describes how the United Kingdom developed its Air Quality in Major Incidents (AQinMI) service to provide fire emission plume concentration data for use by managers at the time of the incident and to allow an informed public health response. It is one of the first civilian services of its type anywhere in the world. Based on the involvement of several of the authors in the AQinMI service, we describe the service's function, detail the nature of fires covered by the service, and report for the first time on the concentration ranges of PM to which populations may be exposed in major incident fires. We also consider the human health impacts of short-term exposure to significantly elevated PM concentrations and reflect on the appropriateness of current short-term guideline values in providing public health advice. We have analysed monitoring data for airborne PM (≤10μm, PM;≤2.5μm, PM and ≤1.0μm, PM) collected by AQinMI teams using an Osiris laser light scattering monitor, the UK Environment Agency's 'indicative standard' equipment, during deployment to 23 major incident industrial fires. In this context, 'indicative' is applied to monitoring equipment that provides confirmation of the presence of particulates and indicates a measured mass concentration value. Incident-averaged concentrations ranged from 38 to 1450μgm for PM and 7 to 258μgm for PM. Of concern was that, for several incidents, 15-min averaged concentrations reached >6500μgm for PM and 650μgm for PM, though such excursions tended to be of relatively short duration. In the absence of accepted very short-term (15-min to 1-h) guideline values for PM and PM we have analysed the relationship between the 1-h and 24-h threshold values and whether the former can be used as a predictor of longer-term exposure. Based on this analysis, for PM, our tentative 1-h threshold value for use in deciding whether to close public buildings or to evacuate areas is 510μgm. For PM, 1-h concentrations exceeding 350μgm might indicate longer-term exposure problems. We conclude that whilst services such as AQinMI are a positive development, there is a need to consider further the accuracy of the data provided and for the development of very short-term guideline values (i.e. minutes to hours) that responders can use to determine the appropriate public health response.

In January 2009 David Cameron announced that the ‘underlying philosophy’ of his government would be progressive conservatism. Despite the ambiguity about this term, it was generally interpreted as a signal that Cameron was moving his party to the left. To some commentators, Cameron was allying with the progressive ‘one nation’ strand of conservative thought. To others, particularly in the media, he was drawing on the more immediate influence of Phillip Blond's ‘Red Toryism’. However, the focus on the market (as opposed to state or community) found in both Cameron's speech and subsequent policies sits uneasily with both of these interpretations. Cameron's progressive conservatism has more in common with Thatcherism – an earlier conservative modernising project – than it does with centrist forms of conservative progressivism. Cameron's progressive conservatism is progressive, but only in particular, less commonly used, ways – not as a rediscovery of social justice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Public services—in the UK and elsewhere—are under considerable pressure, not just from austerity, but also from a variety of social, demographic and technological changes (in effect ‘austerity plus’). In this context, three broad options are open to policy‐makers: continue with tried‐and‐tested approaches while spending less money, which in the UK means a reliance on ‘New Public Management’ (NPM); withdraw completely from certain public services; or develop new approaches to public administration. We argue that all of these approaches have been attempted in recent years, but it is the final option that is most interesting and potentially the most beneficial. In this article, we examine experiments with these new approaches in responding to ‘austerity plus’. In particular, we examine various attempts at ‘collaboration’ in public services and discuss the risks associated with them. We conclude by setting out the extent to which policy‐makers have moved beyond NPM and suggesting some of the benefits that this could bring.

No abstract

Simon Griffiths reviews a year of public services under the Coalition and tries to square the radical programme of reforms with the pre‐election notion of Cameron as a ‘One Nation’ Conservative. If Labour is to effectively challenge the Coalition's anti‐state arguments, he says, it needs to find a compelling narrative about the role of the public services and the place of the state in their provision.