It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Question.... True or False

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:19 AM
I read somewhere(may have even been here) that pollution levels in cities are going down because todays new cars actually expel cleaner air than the air they take in.

Is this true or false, and if true, why are people still so insistent in taking cars off the road if they are cleaning the environment. Why not just take all the old/high emission vehicles off road.?

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:37 AM
False totaly False cars trucks planes trains all pollut Just look on any calm day over new york or la to see the effects cars and trucks have on the air quilty.
Ps gov standers demand pollution controle be installed in new cars and off the show room floor they do pollut less then older cars use to .But there are two problems 1 theres Millions more cars on the road 2 the pollution controls are only as good as they can be made and there over all effect goes down very quickly as the car ages .
theres a post here on the Giant cloud of pollution immeted from china and you can see these same type of clouds over any large city in the world from satalight.
The worlds dieing and lots of people here try to say its not mans problem .

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:15 AM
Madman, that is partially true -- in the United States, at least.

If you google 'historical pollution levels us cities', you will find about a hundred hits that show that, in many cases, there have been declining levels of both PM10 and PM2.5 particulates, especially in American cities.

However, this does not give us a free pass, bercause we're seeing more and more correlated health risks such as COPD and other illnesses, especially in utero health risks.

Also, while the pollution levels are going down in the United States, they're not going down fast enough, and the p[ollution in the larger developing country cities is climbing as their residents' standard of living rises, providing more cars and buses as well as electrical generating plants, which are the two major sources of airborne pollution.

If you're intersted in methods of ameliorating the health problems associated with pollution, I suggest you check out the ATS alternative fuels study group here at

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:06 PM
Thanks for the reply, i didnt think about the fact that as the new cars get older they will obviously pollute at a greater level.

Also, it figures that as countries develop to our level, they are gonna go through the same mass pollution era we went through and are only really now trying to revert the damage we have done.

One last question, if new cars can "clean" the air so to speak, why dont they build something that would suck in the polluted air and clean it. Or do they do this already.

My eyes have only recently been opened to the damage we are causing through pollution and the legacy we are leaving our children.

Oh and thanks for the link

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:20 PM
well, just to give you an idea. i was in paris 2 weeks ago and it snowed over night, quite a lot. in the morning i walked from the hotel to the office along a busy road and what was my surprise to see that the snow that fell overnight was already covered with a black layer of unhealthy looking stuff. so i don't think there is anything good coming out of the cars and any engine that is ran by gas.

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If you google 'historical pollution levels us cities', you will find about a hundred hits that show that, in many cases, there have been declining levels of both PM10 and PM2.5 particulates, especially in American cities.

I don't know if I was looking at the same sites you were but I did notice some of the sites listed are funded by groups who benefit from pollution.

Just a heads up for everyone. Many of these web sites are funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris. So just be careful on who the messenger is.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:16 AM
Actually I find the pollutants expelled by newer cars with 'unleaded fuel' to be more toxic than the old standard petroleum.

Before someone jumps on me with facts and figures of lowered pollutants, I said I find the pollutants more toxic and I do. My skin burns, my head throbs, i get tired and ache in the joints. Now thats just me but I am a bit like the canary they take down mines. I have an immune system that works overtime and attacks all foreign stuff making my skin burn, head ache, feel ill, faint and dizzy with joint pains and tiredness. Some unleaded cars that have their 'catholic converter' (ok catalytic then), not working make me feel like passing out on the spot from the poisons.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:37 AM
Ok, just forget the whole idea of any vehicle putting out "Cleaner" air than it took in. That is in NO WAY true, I don't care if the car is brand new started for the first time and running on the newest and best Gas there is on the market. If you have any doubt then try this experiment.

1st, find a brand new top of the line car. (As long as it uses fuel and not electricity!!)

2nd, Take a few nice big deep breaths of air while standing next to the car and use the quality of that breathing as the control part of this experiment. Your final result will either be Better, Worse or Same when compared to this control breath.

3rd, start the car, let it idle and take some more deep breaths like the ones you did earlier. Only this time suck that air straight out of the tail pipe.

Now, record your results as to which made for the better breathing experience.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by mOjOm

3rd, start the car, let it idle and take some more deep breaths like the ones you did earlier. Only this time suck that air straight out of the tail pipe.


Now thats an experiment you shouldnt try at home

I put this question out because i couldnt grasp the concept of how it could be cleaner. The only thing i could think of was that the "dirtier" fumes were sucked into the car and then "cleaned" via the internal combustion. Thus expelling less harmful gasses than were sucked in.

Probably a load of (self censoring), but it could have some merit. I'm sure i've heard of some type of equipment that burns chemicals waste and expels clean hydrogen.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:22 PM
Particulate pollution is declining in some cities for a number of reasons. I believe suicide in a sealed garage is still possible even with a low-emission car tho'.

I'd say that the primary danger of cars as they are used in America is that the reliance upon oil causes increased global militarization to secure oil so as to keep those cars cheaply fueled. There are some who believe gas prices rising will cause Americans to rethink their use of automobiles but it could easily be said that it will just make them more aggressive in securing more oil. We'll know in a few years, I think.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:22 PM
no newer cars do not produce less polution than they take in.
one thing i have noticed though. in ontario we have had emissions testing for some time.i have noticed cars now produce more noxius smells for one thing. another thing is cars tend to run less efficantly and rough in order to pass. i once took my truck in before it ran well and i got decent milage out of it. after it failed and "repaired" to pass i noticed it ran rough and the milage went down.i have actualy talked to people who get the vehicle passed then reset everything to run better. one interesting side effect is more people are trying to find older cars that do not require to be tested at all lol. most people i talk to consider the whole thing to be a tax grab supported by manufactureres to sell more cars and car parts.

i noticed someone mentioned lead free gas. well i once owned an old dart (back in the 90's) i picked up some lead additive to add to the gas as it was manufactured to use leaded gas. i added it and the car ran like crap, so i went in to a mechanic i knew from doing an auto co-op with. he laughed at me and told me there was still enough lead to run the car and by adding more i caused the problem.

electric cars are not the answer either as electicity manufactureing cases too much polution as it is and as we all saw a couple of years ago (the big blackout) we are all ready useing too much. as for the polution coal (this should be obvious) the exaust gasses it produces. nuclear melt downs and radiation leaks are possible and the heat that they put into the water. hydro it ruins good land and causes heat polution in the water.

what we need is more fuel eficiant engines and more use of synthetic fules, (why be handcuffed to the middle east when we don't have to be?). also actual synthtic oils would be nice. what is called synthetic oil now is regular oil with the bigger particals removed (this info is from pennzoil's sales reps). this is why an oil consumtion problem tends to worsen with synthtic oil.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:33 PM

what we need is more fuel eficiant engines and more use of synthetic fules


As I understand it, any diesel can run on veggie oil if the oil is pre-heated correctly. This is the idea behind "greasels" or diesel cars and trucks that run entirely on cooking oil. Supposedly the emissions smell like whatever food was cooked in the oil. If you got the oil from a Chinese fryer, it'll smell like schezuan, if from a donut fryer, your car will smell like donuts, etc.

I wonder why this isn't talked about more? It could free us from oil dependence.

SUGGESTION: Can we edit this thread's title so as to describe it better?

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:40 PM
Yes biodiesel is made from ethanol and plant oils like rape seed and canola. It is a much more efficient regime, and would be cheaper and cleaner to mass produce without raping and depleting the rest of the worlds natural oil reserves.

But then mysteriously no one wants to look at it in the bigger picture..

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:53 PM
Those who control the oil control the world. They will not give up that control.

"We want to destroy environmentalists by taking away their money and their members"

Ron Arnold, Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (New York Times, Dec 19, 1991)

new topics


log in