It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Study links heavy diesel exhaust to lung cancer

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 


550HP huh? I can guarantee that that's the peak power produced for a short duration, I can guarantee that a 12 Valve 5.9 wont hold together for vary long churning out that kind of power, and you sure as hell ain't gonna be working it hard turning out that kind of power either. Even after you build the bottom end up to hold up to that kind of power. I used to build truck and tractor engines for a living, semi retired now.

I shake my head when i see all these kids with one tons dropping a chip in them and thinking they are cool. Pointless i say, you cant hook onto a goose neck and pull 20,000 lbs down the road all day after doing that.

If you think you can, go ahead and see what happens after the first 50 miles. She's gonna go into catastrophic meltdown.

You want a real powerhouse diesel pickup throw a 8.3 cummins under the hood. They will push 450 HP all day long, to me numbers of 550 out a 5.9 mean nothing when it wont sustain that for a long duration. Unless your sled pullin its worthless on the road. Waste of precious Diesel.

Getting onto the subject at hand, These Tier 2 diesels are far worse then their past cousins, becouse they are using a particulate filter and re burning the soot into an even smaller particle. Its been a hot topic in the past year on forums. Tier 3 are a bit less dangerous due to the fact of the way they catalyze the exhaust with Urea.
edit on 4-3-2012 by Pegasus2000 because: added content




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Getting to the reasoning why diesels are so popular in heavy industry is the fact that they turn slower RPM's to produce their torque Curve, its not the all out HP that counts in diesels, its their steel twisting torque. That's why a diesel will last SO much longer than a Gasser, as well as the fact the Block and crank are built quite a bit heaver than their gasser counterparts excluding the Ford FE and Y blocks who would have been a good design for a diesel in my opinion as far as the block and bottom end goes. This does not include the 5.7 GM diesels they put out in the 70's and early 6.2 and 6.5 which had a tendency to crack the webbing in the block above the main journals between the cam. as well as sporadic head cracking issues on the turbo 6.5. There is a list of them that have had design flaws i could mention but will leave out, this is not a diesel forum.

as far as the 12 valve 5.9Cummins goes they do have their flaws. two biggest ones are the alignment pin in the timing case that has a tendency to work its way out and fall into the gear set, roll around and knock a hole though the aluminum gear casing. I'm sure some who have owned a 5.9 has had this happen when all of a sudden one day you notice it bleeding oil in the front of the block and think its the front main seal, and under further inspection notice its leaking out from higher up on the block just below the head.

If you think its not true Google up "Killer Dowel Pin".

I've done alot of repairs on these, best thing for a dodge owner or owner of a 5.9 do is tear you gear case down and tab the top alignment pin before it does cause an issue.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
There's some really great information here. !!
so what would be needed in materials to make this alge growing system.?
would this be a do-it-yourself type thing for a average person?
thanks



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 



firstly the op source is referring to HEAVY diesel, …most european diesel is far cleaner than usa diesel , however this cleaness does make more of the small particles i think so mebbe a bit of a catch 22


Yes - it's a catch-22. …Looks like the engine is the biggest problem, not the fuel.

…The engine generates small particulates that cross the membrane barriers, get into the bloodstream, make clots and more - causing heart attacks, strokes and other health problems. Kids, the sick and elderly are especially at risk. It looks like nano-particles are even worse than the fine particulates that have already been studied.

It's the size of the particulates that's the big problem, NOT just their chemical composition.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 


Thank you for your input - you have clearly explained that yet another "green" product isn't. ….Obviously, the source article is part of a media campaign to push alternative diesel fuel - it focuses on carcinogenic chemicals in current mixes - and completely ignores the known risks of fine particulates and nanoparticles (which I addressed in my commentary).


Originally posted by LeonoraTenen

Originally posted by soficrow
killing kids and our elders and so on.


What the hell? Killing kids and so on?
You sound like a caricature of a hippy on an episode of South Park.


The science says children, the sick and elderly face the highest risks, although even healthy people can suffer from the fine particulates and nanoparticles passing through cell membranes and migrating into other organs, including the brain.

Beyond containing carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic chemical components - which algae-derived diesel may not contain - the REAL problem is the size of the particulates. Fine particulates pass the lung membrane barrier; nanoparticles pass cell membrane barriers, and get inside our bodies' cells.



The main particulate fraction of diesel exhaust consists of fine particles. Because of their small size, inhaled particles may easily penetrate deep into the lungs. The rough surfaces of these particles makes it easy for them to bind with other toxins in the environment, thus increasing the hazards of particle inhalation.

the full health effects from nanoparticles produced by all types of diesel are unknown. It is already clear enough, however, that the health detriments of fine particle emissions are severe and pervasive.



There is evidence that particles smaller than 100 nanometers can pass through cell membranes and migrate into other organs, including the brain.


Again, it's the engine that's the problem, not just the fuel.



Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.

Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children's lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.






...........cont'd



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I just got a new job breathing diesel fumes all day and night! I did it before and it was awful. It took me years to recooperate. Nothing a spacesuit can't stop. It is going to be hard to sleep in a spacesuit in those truck stop parking lots filled with microparticles.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 

..........cont'd




The effects of inhaling particulate matter that have been widely studied in humans and animals now include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, birth defects, and premature death. The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Because of their small size, particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less (PM10) can penetrate the deepest part of the lungs such as the bronchioles or alveoli.[12] Larger particles are generally filtered in the nose and throat via cilia and mucus, but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometers, referred to as PM10, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems. …Similarly, particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers, PM2.5, tend to penetrate into the gas exchange regions of the lung, and very small particles (< 100 nanometers) may pass through the lungs to affect other organs. In particular, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates that PM2.5 leads to high plaque deposits in arteries, causing vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis — a hardening of the arteries that reduces elasticity, which can lead to heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.[13] Researchers suggest that even short-term exposure at elevated concentrations could significantly contribute to heart disease. A study in The Lancet concluded that traffic exhaust is the single most serious preventable cause of heart attack in the general public, the cause of 7.4% of all attacks.[14]

The smallest particles, less than 100 nanometers (nanoparticles), may be even more damaging to the cardiovascular system.[15]

There is evidence that particles smaller than 100 nanometers can pass through cell membranes and migrate into other organs, including the brain. It has been suggested that particulate matter can cause similar brain damage as that found in Alzheimer patients. Particles emitted from modern diesel engines (commonly referred to as Diesel Particulate Matter, or DPM) are typically in the size range of 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometer). In addition, these soot particles also carry carcinogenic components like benzopyrenes adsorbed on their surface. It is becoming increasingly clear that the legislative limits for engines, which are in terms of emitted mass, are not a proper measure of the health hazard.



The main particulate fraction of diesel exhaust consists of fine particles. Because of their small size, inhaled particles may easily penetrate deep into the lungs. The rough surfaces of these particles makes it easy for them to bind with other toxins in the environment, thus increasing the hazards of particle inhalation. Exposures have been linked with acute short-term symptoms such as headache, dizziness, light-headedness, nausea, coughing, difficult or labored breathing, tightness of chest, and irritation of the eyes and nose and throat[citation needed]. Long-term exposures can lead to chronic, more serious health problems such as cardiovascular disease, cardiopulmonary disease, and lung cancer[citation needed].

the full health effects from nanoparticles produced by all types of diesel are unknown. It is already clear enough, however, that the health detriments of fine particle emissions are severe and pervasive.



Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
Way to give "green" a bad name by emotional inflating & by melodramatizing things..
…Doesn't help the cause at all.. which I would see myself on your side of. Helping the planet.


The scientific facts speak for themselves. …We clearly disagree as to what constitutes "green."


Originally posted by LeonoraTenen

Originally posted by soficrow
…"natural source" diesel …might not have carcinogenic properties, but the other problems remain.


Wow, you really like to jump to conclusions, with massive bias and no information.


I have provided numerous substantiating links regarding the health impacts of fine particulates and nanoparticles emitted by diesel engines. You have provided nothing but empty rhetoric.


Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
You must not like diesels very much at all do you??


I have no emotional response to diesels. …I do however have heart and lung problems and am intimately familiar with the health impacts of diesel exhaust.




...........cont'd
edit on 4/3/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 

......cont'd




Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
What I'm proposing is a way our country could replace un-sustainable fuel ... without replacing the 10's of millions of diesel engines which bring everything you buy to your local stores. Boats, Trains, Trucking, Air Travel... it's all diesel (jet A is similar).

You're proposing we need to throw away all of those engines and start fresh with all of it.


You're making an argument for the economics, but misrepresenting the health issues. I am talking about health issues and have not addressed the economic implications.

However, my position on the economics is simple: I do NOT think money is more important than peoples' lives or quality of life. Moreover, diesel clearly contributes to the chronic disease pandemic, and the related health costs are already off-the-wall. Saving money on engines while allowing related health costs to escalate, and simply shifting the economic burden to another 'department' doesn't wash.


Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
…stop acting like an insolent brat.
…you looney tuner.


Back attcha.



Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
You have just made this all up on your own and ran with it..


As I pointed out early, I have provided numerous substantiating links regarding the health impacts of fine particulates and nanoparticles emitted by diesel engines. You have provided nothing but empty rhetoric.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 



Learn things before you bash science.


Seems to me that you're the one bashing science. Or are you saying epidemiology, nanotoxicology, biology and environmental medicine don't qualify as science?







posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Pegasus2000
 



....Tier 2 diesels are far worse then their past cousins, becouse they are using a particulate filter and re burning the soot into an even smaller particle. Its been a hot topic in the past year on forums. Tier 3 are a bit less dangerous due to the fact of the way they catalyze the exhaust with Urea.


Thanks so much for your informed input.

...Do you think there's any way to overcome the health issues resulting from internal combustion? (Without making them worse?)

...Are there any alternatives to internal combustion? Given that we're well beyond space age technology, seems to me there's gotta be.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Well well ....suprise suprise....cancers rates go upto significantly in the 90's 20yrs after the oil shortage crisis of the 70's where people were encouraged to swtich to diesel (die cells) I mean if you read this book

WILD THINGS THEY DON'T TELL US

by Reg Presley

It will give you some insight as the the diesel fuel senario.....I met him at a UFO conference in London 4yrs ago....

Very interesting individual.....but was diagnosed with lung cancer himself ....and he smoked like a chimney....but did he blame it on that...nope.

My father was a truck driver all his life....never smoked....but he died of lung cancer....interesting to say the least.

my mom smoked all her life.....now people say second hand smoked....well if your a smoker and an avid bingo player back in the day you got...loads of firsthand smoke and secondhand smoke.....guess what.....no lung cancer and still going strong at a good ole age of 87.....but heck.....Interesting story standing at a bus stop...lady shouting at a lady for smoking as the bus parked there belches black sooting diesel exhaust directly into her face....How sick is that.

the world is a twisted bent place where there is nothing in which we can believe from the MSM.....they lie to us and promote their own agenda....and it does not included the masses in that agenda.....and the cleansing of the slaves is beginning......

on a brighter note......plaese smoke cigs until your hearts content...but avoid standing at the bus stop while waiting for your public transport to show up.
edit on 113131p://f51Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 113131p://f52Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pegasus2000
550HP huh? I can guarantee that that's the peak power produced for a short duration, I can guarantee that a 12 Valve 5.9 wont hold together for vary long churning out that kind of power, and you sure as hell ain't gonna be working it hard turning out that kind of power either. Even after you build the bottom end up to hold up to that kind of power. I used to build truck and tractor engines for a living, semi retired now.


I have spent four years building my 12-valve (180HP P-pump) to hold this power reliably.
This engine (as you know) cannot be just "CHIPPED" and go fast.
I have built it to run like this without smoke and with low EGT's.
To get to 550HP, I run 5x.014" injectors + adv timing, Bosch 024 DV's & 64mm turbo. That's really all it takes for 550HP on a 12v and I still get 22MPG unloaded (in a 7k pound truck).


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
I shake my head when i see all these kids with one tons dropping a chip in them and thinking they are cool. Pointless i say, you cant hook onto a goose neck and pull 20,000 lbs down the road all day after doing that.


I feel the same way. You're right.. it's inevitable that EGT's will rise and you'll have to baby-sit the EGT gauge if you're loaded. There are ways to help this as you know. So don't make it seem so futile.
There are many bad ways to do it and many good ways to do it. As they say "Fast, Cheap & Reliable... you can only have 2".


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
If you think you can, go ahead and see what happens after the first 50 miles. She's gonna go into catastrophic meltdown.


I've drag raced this thing at over 60Lb's boost (marine headgasket & A1 headstuds) for the past 50,000 miles. My compression is perfect, no noticeable blow-by and the engine runs like new. I had the head off about 20k ago to do the HG and the cylinders/pistons are perfect. Fires up on the first crank every time.

You're talking about all the people you've seen *doing it wrong* (when SO FEW know what to do, to do it right) and probably assuming I'm one of the prior category.


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
You want a real powerhouse diesel pickup throw a 8.3 cummins under the hood. They will push 450 HP all day long, to me numbers of 550 out a 5.9 mean nothing when it wont sustain that for a long duration. Unless your sled pullin its worthless on the road. Waste of precious Diesel.


I get better MPG now because my Torque went from 400ft/lb stock to ~1250ft/lb so (as you must know) I'm using way less fuel to do the same amount of work. I get 22MPG at 68MPH. If I drop to 62MPH, I get about 24MPG.

And as I said, when I mash it, it's a small puff to spool and then CLEAN because my turbo burns all the fuel.
Not saying I get amazing MPG's while mashing the pedal.. just saying it doesn't smoke so it's not WASTING fuel, which is how you've always seen it done... at least I'm guessing that, because I know the diesel perf industry well too and it's 90% dumb rednecks whose trucks smoke excessively.


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
as far as the 12 valve 5.9Cummins goes they do have their flaws. two biggest ones are the alignment pin in the timing case that has a tendency to work its way out and fall into the gear set, roll around and knock a hole though the aluminum gear casing. I'm sure some who have owned a 5.9 has had this happen when all of a sudden one day you notice it bleeding oil in the front of the block and think its the front main seal, and under further inspection notice its leaking out from higher up on the block just below the head.


If you think its not true Google up "Killer Dowel Pin".

Thanks, but I did my KDP when I first bought the truck. It was a 98 w/ 160k at that point and it had worked it's way out about 3/16". Don't assume I'm some newb kid anymore please. I probably know near as much as you bud.

What was the 2nd of the two big problems you brought up? You said KDP then ______ ???


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
I've done alot of repairs on these, best thing for a dodge owner or owner of a 5.9 do is tear you gear case down and tab the top alignment pin before it does cause an issue.


Plus tighten (and Loctite blue) all of the bolts holding the case to the engine, because they loosen and fall and do as much damage as the KDP can.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Thank you for your input - you have clearly explained that yet another "green" product isn't. ….


No, you explained that and jumped to that conclusion on your own.
That should be clear to anyone reading this.. you are a meaning-making machine right now.


Originally posted by soficrow
Obviously, the source article is part of a media campaign to push alternative diesel fuel - it focuses on carcinogenic chemicals in current mixes - and completely ignores the known risks of fine particulates and nanoparticles (which I addressed in my commentary).


Oh yeah... obviously. But not obvious to anyone but you.


Originally posted by soficrow
The science says children, the sick and elderly face the highest risks,


So kids being "at risk", that means... "killing kids".
It's laughable. I won't explain why this is ridiculous. THAT is what is obvious, (to a reasonable person) if anything.


Originally posted by soficrow


the full health effects from nanoparticles produced by all types of diesel are unknown. It is already clear enough, however, that the health detriments of fine particle emissions are severe and pervasive.


See??? This says it is UNKNOWN, not that "all types of diesel" are KNOWN to produce these fine particles.
Show me how it's the engine and not the fuel making these "nanoparticles".


Originally posted by soficrow
Again, it's the engine that's the problem, not just the fuel.


Not again... you haven't once shown that THE ENGINE produces the micro-particles.
Because it says "DIESEL EXHAUST" which means EXHAUST FROM DIESEL FUEL!!!
That doesn't mean ALL EXHAUST from a diesel engine.



Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.

Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children's lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.


This is all relating to "Diesel EXHAUST" which means *exhaust from diesel fuel*.

They have never tested other forms of fuel in these engines. That is clear from one of the earlier quoted articles above in my post.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
For heaven's sake - this argument is pathetic - a simple Google search finds plenty of info about teh generation of nano-scale particles from internal combustion - eg this paper notes that both compression and spark ignition engines create plenty.

And if I read it right - most of the particles are actually formed in the exhaust - not the combustion chamber.

An engine without fuel will not generate any nano particles.

Fuel without combustion (an engine) wont' generate any either!!
edit on 4-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pegasus2000
Pointless i say, you cant hook onto a goose neck and pull 20,000 lbs down the road all day after doing that.

If you think you can, go ahead and see what happens after the first 50 miles. She's gonna go into catastrophic meltdown.


I had to address this specifically, because I have towed over 20,000Lbs on a 1200 mile trip and tow our 5th wheel often... AT THIS POWER LEVEL.
I don't push it at all while towing. The truck drives better at all speeds, slow, med, fast... you must not have seen a 550HP 5.9L done right. I would love to take you for a drive in it, but I live on a remote island, so that's unlikely.


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
Tier 3 are a bit less dangerous due to the fact of the way they catalyze the exhaust with Urea.


The whole "BlueTec" (urea-injection) thing has been shown to be a total waste. It lasted about 1-2 years on the MFG's who built them (Mercedes & Chrysler). The Mercedes & Cummins BlueTecs aren't being made anymore.
So Tier 3 is a joke.


Originally posted by Pegasus2000
That's why a diesel will last SO much longer than a Gasser, as well as the fact the Block and crank are built quite a bit heaver than their gasser counterparts excluding the Ford FE and Y blocks who would have been a good design for a diesel in my opinion as far as the block and bottom end goes. This does not include the 5.7 GM diesels they put out in the 70's and early 6.2 and 6.5 which had a tendency to crack the webbing in the block above the main journals between the cam. as well as sporadic head cracking issues on the turbo 6.5. There is a list of them that have had design flaws i could mention but will leave out, this is not a diesel forum.


In addition to what you said, the main reason why most diesels last longer is due to the fact that they run SUCH high compression, they usually need to have blocks & heads that are made out of cast iron. They're made to industrial standards. Especially the inline engines with mechanical injection.

As you said, certain diesel engines (GM/Olds 5.7, 6.2, 6.5 etc..) were ridiculous (usually V8's suck) and they didn't last long because they weren't industrial strength.

There are so many types of diesel injection and engine designs that produce entirely unique emissions profiles, so this whole (all diesels are bad) thing is totally ridiculous.

Nobody has said this, but I'll offer it up out of kindness.
I have a feeling the the micro-particles come from the inherently high compression.
As Aloysius said, they are a "compression ignition" engine. *NOT* spark ignition.

I maintain that the fuel will make a gigantic difference and the evidence SofiCrow presented shows THEY HAVEN'T tested different fuels... let alone the algae bio which is levels above all other veg oils in quality and purity and viscosity.

edit on 4-3-2012 by LeonoraTenen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
An engine without fuel will not generate any nano particles.

Fuel without combustion (an engine) wont' generate any either!!


Sometimes... I just have to say "I love you" to people..
I don't care what we've gotten into before, you chiming in on this one is makin my day.

People also need to remember that electric vehicles need to get a charge from somewhere.
And usually what is making the electricity is generating a similar amount of "nano-particles" (as running a diesel/gas burner the same distance as that charge will allow) just to charge your one vehicle.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
For heaven's sake - this argument is pathetic - a simple Google search finds plenty of info about teh generation of nano-scale particles from internal combustion - eg this paper notes that both compression and spark ignition engines create plenty.


Great link, thanks.



Nanoparticle Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines

Spark ignition engines typically emit smaller particles than diesel engines and are an important source of fine particles and nanoparticles.

New gasoline direct injection engines emit much higher particle concentrations than conventional engines and may approach diesel levels under some conditions



Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
An engine without fuel will not generate any nano particles.

Fuel without combustion (an engine) wont' generate any either!!


So the solution is to lose the engine or the fuel, maybe both.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
An engine without fuel will not generate any nano particles.

Fuel without combustion (an engine) wont' generate any either!!


So the solution is to lose the engine or the fuel, maybe both.



No he's not saying the solution is to lose the engine, you are saying that.
What would you replace them with?

... please don't say EV because electric vehicles are getting their battery charge 99% of the time from polluting sources that make as much pollution (per vehicle charge) to rival emissions from internal combustion engines.

Do you understand the laws of physics and thermo-dynamics??

Moving mass over distance requires energy. Where do you propose getting this energy??
And I'm talking the final energy source, not simply saying "we need electric vehicles".

Besides, the vehicles, which electric vehicles always replace, never would have had a diesel engine to begin with.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
One more thing.. what do you think the EPA's job is?
Why do you think diesel vehicles are SO heavily emissions-laden and regulated AND ILLEGAL (in certain states) is because of emissions legislation and watchdog groups. It's not like what you're bringing up is news.
We know all engines cause pollution and we know big diesels (busses and semi-trucks) used to put out a lot more soot before DPF's came about. But now with DPF's, the particles got smaller so the health risks went UP. 1 step forward and 2 steps back. The emissions-law dance.

Do you think California's air quality has gone UP since they passed all of the new diesel smog legislation that they did (in Jan 1998)?? No it hasn't. And that's 15 years ago. The more they outlaw diesels, the more gassers and the worse the air quality. Because gas exhaust makes smog, diesel exhaust doesn't... soot sinks geniuses.

Important point: fuel consumption in America has plummeted since 08 price hike, it hasn't returned.
Statistics show people drive less and use less fuel than they have in years because the prices effected their lives and way of thinking around driving so much..

Has air quality gone up and lung cancer rates dropped?

edit on 4-3-2012 by LeonoraTenen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 


Originally posted by LeonoraTenen

Originally posted by soficrow
The science says children, the sick and elderly face the highest risks,


So kids being "at risk", that means... "killing kids".


Exactly. Those at highest risk tend to die. That's one reason why air quality reports tell people to stay indoors on high pollution days - especially the elderly, people with asthma or heart problems, small children etc..


Children aged less than five years that live in developing countries are the most vulnerable population in terms of total deaths attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution.[15] …

…"Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution. . ."[17] A study by the University of Birmingham has shown a strong correlation between pneumonia related deaths and air pollution from motor vehicles.[18] …The US EPA estimates that a proposed set of changes in diesel engine technology (Tier 2) could result in 12,000 fewer premature mortalities, 15,000 fewer heart attacks, 6,000 fewer emergency room visits by children with asthma, and 8,900 fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the United States.


Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children's lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.



Originally posted by LeonoraTenen

Originally posted by soficrow


the full health effects from nanoparticles produced by all types of diesel are unknown. It is already clear enough, however, that the health detriments of fine particle emissions are severe and pervasive.


See??? This says it is UNKNOWN,


It says the FULL health effects are unknown, but the already-known health detriments of fine particle emissions clearly are severe and pervasive.


Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
….not that "all types of diesel" are KNOWN to produce these fine particles.
Show me how it's the engine and not the fuel making these "nanoparticles". ….Because it says "DIESEL EXHAUST" which means EXHAUST FROM DIESEL FUEL!!!
This is all relating to "Diesel EXHAUST" which means *exhaust from diesel fuel*.


Diesel fuel goes into diesel engines, which is a specific kind of internal combustion engine that produces diesel exhaust. All types of internal combustion engines are known to generate fine particulates and nanoparticles. Check out the report Aloysius the Gaul posted above: Nanoparticle Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines.

As others have pointed out, ultra-fine particulates and nanoparticles get through exhaust filters (actually, newer filters re-burn the exhaust, creating finer particulates). …It's another conundrum.



BTW - I reviewed every single one of your posts; you have provided NO references (except to quote my ref showing the health effects of diesel exhaust). Time to stop with the ad copy and start backing up your claims.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 4/3/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/3/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join