RE: Smouldering ruins: PH Blog
Discussion
otolith said:
heebeegeetee said:
I've had many friends and family die through cancer and heart disease etc, but I've never known anyone die of nox, despite the death rate being drastically higher than rta figures.
So it should be very easy indeed to identify someone who has died of nox or died of diesel. Yet I can't pinpoint anyone. Can you?
You can't actually prove that an individual heavy smoker who died of lung cancer or heart disease was killed by smoking, because both conditions occur in non-smokers. You can only look at the statistics and conclude that there is an increase in the likelihood of those conditions in smokers. So it is with air quality.So it should be very easy indeed to identify someone who has died of nox or died of diesel. Yet I can't pinpoint anyone. Can you?
St John Smythe said:
You really are like a stuck record with this stuff.
Am I? It's the first time I've asked the question. I know this because it's a point I wanted to pursue, and would like to start another thread about it, haven't got the time, and have tried to avoid derailing these threads by pursuing this point. I mention it for the first time, I believe, and get told I'm a stuck record.
What a strange place PH is.
Anyway, I would like to know more about these people dieing prematurely from air pollution though. For instance, how premature?
Reason I ask is because I remember back in the 80s (I think) I recall the 'Diesel kills 100k people' headlines. They were based on studies done in the states (which back then effectively had no diesel cars) and Six Cities studies.
Hospital mortality figures were studied in six industrial cities, and it was noticed that reported death rates in hospitals in those cities showed that more people died when air pollution was worse.
In other words, people who were terminally ill in hospital might die on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
And I'm just wondering, how much has information in this regard moved on since then, and what do we know?
TooMany2cvs said:
Who says the dyno used ignores weight and aerodynamics? If it did, why would manufacturers bother with aero tweaks and weight-shedding for the bunny-hug versions?
Are you saying that the dyno has a calculated extra resistance based on drag, that is calculated for that specific vehicle?iloveboost said:
Are you saying that the dyno has a calculated extra resistance based on drag, that is calculated for that specific vehicle?
Yes, the resistance is set using vehicle mass and a coast-down profile.See, for example;
http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files...
heebeegeetee said:
Hospital mortality figures were studied in six industrial cities, and it was noticed that reported death rates in hospitals in those cities showed that more people died when air pollution was worse.
In other words, people who were terminally ill in hospital might die on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
What evidence do you have that the second sentence is an accurate summary of the first? It doesn't seem to follow?In other words, people who were terminally ill in hospital might die on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
TooMany2cvs said:
Very true. And even more s
t is going to hit the fan as they do.
OK, maybe not the absolute latest numbers, but in 2005...
Nearly a billion people lived on under $1/day
Half of the world's population lived on under $2.50/day
80% of the world's population lived on under $10/day
Nearly a billion people were illiterate
Over a billion people had no access to adequate clean water, and 2.6bn had no access to basic sanitation
Right now, all those people are struggling to stay alive. As they get their basic needs met, they're going to start wanting to live like the people they see in the developed world - they'll start to dream of one day having things that you and I take for granted.
Yes it's a bit humbling. I sometimes feel slightly guilty about why developed countries like ours are far wealthier, as historically it's not good.t is going to hit the fan as they do.OK, maybe not the absolute latest numbers, but in 2005...
Nearly a billion people lived on under $1/day
Half of the world's population lived on under $2.50/day
80% of the world's population lived on under $10/day
Nearly a billion people were illiterate
Over a billion people had no access to adequate clean water, and 2.6bn had no access to basic sanitation
Right now, all those people are struggling to stay alive. As they get their basic needs met, they're going to start wanting to live like the people they see in the developed world - they'll start to dream of one day having things that you and I take for granted.
AnotherClarkey said:
heebeegeetee said:
Hospital mortality figures were studied in six industrial cities, and it was noticed that reported death rates in hospitals in those cities showed that more people died when air pollution was worse.
In other words, people who were terminally ill in hospital might die on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
What evidence do you have that the second sentence is an accurate summary of the first? It doesn't seem to follow?In other words, people who were terminally ill in hospital might die on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
Seriously, who are these people dying prematurely of air quality?
heebeegeetee said:
St John Smythe said:
You really are like a stuck record with this stuff.
Am I? It's the first time I've asked the question. I know this because it's a point I wanted to pursue, and would like to start another thread about it, haven't got the time, and have tried to avoid derailing these threads by pursuing this point. I mention it for the first time, I believe, and get told I'm a stuck record.
What a strange place PH is.
Anyway, I would like to know more about these people dieing prematurely from air pollution though. For instance, how premature?
Reason I ask is because I remember back in the 80s (I think) I recall the 'Diesel kills 100k people' headlines. They were based on studies done in the states (which back then effectively had no diesel cars) and Six Cities studies.
Hospital mortality figures were studied in six industrial cities, and it was noticed that reported death rates in hospitals in those cities showed that more people died when air pollution was worse.
In other words, people who were terminally ill in hospital might die on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
And I'm just wondering, how much has information in this regard moved on since then, and what do we know?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
That's just a fraction of the information out there.
Devil2575 said:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
That's just a fraction of the information out there.
Hmm. I'd have thought that if the problem was so accute and the numbers so high, there'd be a lot more readily available information out there.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
That's just a fraction of the information out there.
If I can find time I'll try and get a look at those, with spending 36 dollars, but are they addressing the developed or undeveloped world, or both?
Pan Pan Pan said:
It would be great if wind farms and solar power could satisfy our energy needs, but they cannot, and their relative inefficiencies would mean the country would need to be covered in them, if we are to get anywhere near the base load supply we need.
The only real option is nuclear power, wind farms and solar panels are far to affected by the fickle nature of our weather. Also in the winter when most power is required is generally when solar / wind energy is at its lowest level.
Solar panels decline in efficiency over time, so the cost of continuous replacement would also need to be factored in, but this would be little different to factoring in the cost of ensuring continuous fuel supplies to power stations using the current crop of fuels.
The only sensible renewable source for an island nation such as the UK might be tidal power, but viable large scale systems seem to be a long long way off at present.
The current population has rocketed on the back of fossil fuel use, but when fossil fuels run out, as they will, since they are not a finite energy source, what happens to the population would be anyone's guess. Hopefully by then we might have developed viable alternate mass sources of energy.
Since we have no control over population levels, the danger is that we would just use new sources of energy to increase the population still further. Fine for us, but what of the effect of that, on just about every other species, and their habitats on the planet.
Not sure I would want a world where humans are the only large animal left on the planet, even if it was ok for humans.
Wind farms and solar power could easily meet all of our needs.The only real option is nuclear power, wind farms and solar panels are far to affected by the fickle nature of our weather. Also in the winter when most power is required is generally when solar / wind energy is at its lowest level.
Solar panels decline in efficiency over time, so the cost of continuous replacement would also need to be factored in, but this would be little different to factoring in the cost of ensuring continuous fuel supplies to power stations using the current crop of fuels.
The only sensible renewable source for an island nation such as the UK might be tidal power, but viable large scale systems seem to be a long long way off at present.
The current population has rocketed on the back of fossil fuel use, but when fossil fuels run out, as they will, since they are not a finite energy source, what happens to the population would be anyone's guess. Hopefully by then we might have developed viable alternate mass sources of energy.
Since we have no control over population levels, the danger is that we would just use new sources of energy to increase the population still further. Fine for us, but what of the effect of that, on just about every other species, and their habitats on the planet.
Not sure I would want a world where humans are the only large animal left on the planet, even if it was ok for humans.
Energy storage, aesthetics and cost are a different matter entirely. At the moment storage is expensive but solvable. As for the intrusiveness, yes i would prefer not to have windmills in the countryside but roads, road noise and smell, Power lines and railway lines are all scars on the landscape i would prefer to not be there. We notice the wind farms because they are new and they move so they catch our attention much more than stationary objects.
Personally i do not mind them but i recognize many people do. Even so the lack of storage means they only reduce the ammount of gas being burnt by turbines.
personally i would like to see combined heat and power nuclear plants being built. Most of them could easilly pump out enough heat to warm a city in winter. and use Gas solar and wind to provide for the daytime peaks in demand. The gas could then be phased out as energy storage becomes more able to deal with peaks and troughs in energy demand.
As far as the fixed need to maintain a large population the only real consumer we "need" is agriculture and water treatment. This is not a large proportion of our energy except where they perform desalination.
Undoubtedly the global warming zealots will try and maximize the taxation damage for all of us following the VW scandal, but to imagine serious damage to the diesel engine is rather premature and unrealistic.
Love them or loath them, the diesel engine is the relevant solution and world work-horse. I for one would unlikely give up the 60 mpg of my Golf GTD and real-world performance, which exceeds that of its petrol equivalent.
I hope the authorities sting VW until they bleed and invest the money in improving emissions.
The electric solution is unworkable and would break the national grid with a 10% swing from existing internal combustion.
Happy days!
Love them or loath them, the diesel engine is the relevant solution and world work-horse. I for one would unlikely give up the 60 mpg of my Golf GTD and real-world performance, which exceeds that of its petrol equivalent.
I hope the authorities sting VW until they bleed and invest the money in improving emissions.
The electric solution is unworkable and would break the national grid with a 10% swing from existing internal combustion.
Happy days!
Jeremy-tdym0 said:
Undoubtedly the global warming zealots will try and maximize the taxation damage for all of us following the VW scandal, but to imagine serious damage to the diesel engine is rather premature and unrealistic.
Love them or loath them, the diesel engine is the relevant solution and world work-horse. I for one would unlikely give up the 60 mpg of my Golf GTD and real-world performance, which exceeds that of its petrol equivalent.
I hope the authorities sting VW until they bleed and invest the money in improving emissions.
The electric solution is unworkable and would break the national grid with a 10% swing from existing internal combustion.
Happy days!
I don't wish to be rude but that's just bLove them or loath them, the diesel engine is the relevant solution and world work-horse. I for one would unlikely give up the 60 mpg of my Golf GTD and real-world performance, which exceeds that of its petrol equivalent.
I hope the authorities sting VW until they bleed and invest the money in improving emissions.
The electric solution is unworkable and would break the national grid with a 10% swing from existing internal combustion.
Happy days!
ks 
Europe have known about it for 5 years, more revalations about every manufacturer are surfacing....
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109650/sp...
petition:
The Govt must accept share of the blame regarding the Automotive emission crisis
VW and the rest of the automotive industry have been forced to defeat emissions testing in order to avoid massive fines based around unachievable targets. As it is not confined to VW and is endemic, the problem lies with unrealistic government legislation.
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109650/sp...
petition:
The Govt must accept share of the blame regarding the Automotive emission crisis
VW and the rest of the automotive industry have been forced to defeat emissions testing in order to avoid massive fines based around unachievable targets. As it is not confined to VW and is endemic, the problem lies with unrealistic government legislation.
oldtimer2 said:
You conclude: "Here's a plan then. Let's leave the engine building to the engineers, eh?"
That won`t work. The Green Blob will see to that even though their obsession with CO2 and neglect of NOx has contributed to the current distortion of the market. And if the Green Blob does not distort the market, then you can be sure that the tax man will, as he has always done.
The VW engineers who came up with their "fix" were utterly stupid as were those others in the management/marketing hierarchy who were privy to and complicit in the fraud. It is going to hit VW very hard indeed, in reputation and in the VW wallet.
I am looking at a future purchase and am now very wary about the idea of buying a diesel powered car - too much uncertainty about possible future tax regimes to drive diesels off the road. I would not be surprised if the structure of the car market looks very different in five years time.
This was on the cards anyway before the VW furore. We all know / knew they were stinking polluters which, whilst arguably low in CO2, were massively high on everything else!That won`t work. The Green Blob will see to that even though their obsession with CO2 and neglect of NOx has contributed to the current distortion of the market. And if the Green Blob does not distort the market, then you can be sure that the tax man will, as he has always done.
The VW engineers who came up with their "fix" were utterly stupid as were those others in the management/marketing hierarchy who were privy to and complicit in the fraud. It is going to hit VW very hard indeed, in reputation and in the VW wallet.
I am looking at a future purchase and am now very wary about the idea of buying a diesel powered car - too much uncertainty about possible future tax regimes to drive diesels off the road. I would not be surprised if the structure of the car market looks very different in five years time.
TX.
otolith said:
Guvernator said:
We don't need to replace cars, we just need to replace the fuel that powers them. Also contrary to popular belief, the world isn't actually overpopulated so we don't need to stop consuming or stop producing children either. Humans only take up about 3% of the land mass of the earth with agriculture taking up another 40% so we just have to be smarter about where we live and how we utilise the land to grow food\resources etc.
It's all solvable problems if the will was there to do it but we are too comfortable in how we live at present and lots of people make huge amounts of money from the current status quo. We don't need to stop growing as a species, we just need to grow smarter. Invest in genuinely new energy sources (no I am not talking about wind farms etc) we need to solve fusion or some such and get smarter about how we produce meat and grow crops. I know GM crops aren't popular among the ecof*ckwits (good word) through knee jerk reactions without actually understanding what it means but it genuinely could solve a lot of our food production problems. Likewise meat can be grown artificially to a much better standard but the "organic" movement means this is seen as evil. Whether this all happens is another matter as it requires joined up, rational thinking by the powers that be as well as the general population which is currently beyond most it seems.
Current population levels are only tolerable because the vast majority are dirt-poor. Once they start aspiring to (and getting) a more Western lifestyle the sIt's all solvable problems if the will was there to do it but we are too comfortable in how we live at present and lots of people make huge amounts of money from the current status quo. We don't need to stop growing as a species, we just need to grow smarter. Invest in genuinely new energy sources (no I am not talking about wind farms etc) we need to solve fusion or some such and get smarter about how we produce meat and grow crops. I know GM crops aren't popular among the ecof*ckwits (good word) through knee jerk reactions without actually understanding what it means but it genuinely could solve a lot of our food production problems. Likewise meat can be grown artificially to a much better standard but the "organic" movement means this is seen as evil. Whether this all happens is another matter as it requires joined up, rational thinking by the powers that be as well as the general population which is currently beyond most it seems.
t is going to hit the fan.TX.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Earth is capable of sustaining a greater population than it has today in quite reasonable fashion. Small-scale projects have proved that it's possible to turn desert into fertile land (capable of supporting local populations) through planting and irrigation, and much of the world's desert adjoins oceans - the rising levels of which are a continual problem. Sunlight isn't in short supply in desert regions - so we need to be building BIG solar-powered desalination plants, distilling fresh water from the sea, generating some power along the way perhaps, and putting that water to use in reversing the spread of the desert.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff