I'm not really sure the thing they were trying to measure was measurable with the study design and level of funding they had. To be fair, the paper is fairly cl

I'm not really sure the thing they were trying to measure was measurable with the study design and level of funding they had. To be fair, the paper is fairly clear on the limitations and much better than the press release. The study is supposed to measure how clearing up pollution in London improved children's lung function. The decrease in London was meaningful — NO2 fell about 22%. But particulates fell faster in Luton and NO2 in London is still roughly double Luton's. The gap is larger than the decrease. By 2022 both cohorts get the same results on blow tests. But how does this happen if we believe that the study's dose-response model is true? Put another way, if the change in London NO2 is so crucial, how come it doesn't matter that the absolute value is still double Luton's?