Closing rural roads to improve air quality
Discussion
"Michael Meacher: Fewer bad air days" - er.. maybe bad HAIR days might be a better place to start! 
g greenie control-freak wseems cutting particulates is a priority in this scheme. Well that won't be easy with all those dodgy old buses and hackney cabs, will it?
And what about the massive rise in the number of diesel cars thanks to Chubby Brown's new company car tax rules.
Fcukin' left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. And Meacher needs taking out. Right Now
And what about the massive rise in the number of diesel cars thanks to Chubby Brown's new company car tax rules.
Fcukin' left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. And Meacher needs taking out. Right Now
quote:
And what about the massive rise in the number of diesel cars thanks to Chubby Brown's new company car tax rules.
And your point exactly??????
Diseasals produce HUGE amounts of particulates, in the sub-micron range, which are thought to be a preliminary cause of respiratory illnesses. Nothing proven yet, but a lot of circumstantial evidence.
quote:
"Nothing proven yet" "sub-micron range"
Do you believe everything you are told??
No, I don't believe everything I am told - but as I've worked in diesel development, I do have a bit of prior knowledge.......
quote:
Anyway whats a "Diseasals"?
Think about it....... You never watched Thomas the Tank Engine???
quote:
And what about the massive rise in the number of diesel cars thanks to Chubby Brown's new company car tax rules.
What 'massive' rise? The new rules havn't been in long enough for any noticeable increase in numbers. Anyway I thought most diesels had a higher CO score, not lower?
The old rules were a farce - the new ones may not be perfect, but they're a vast improvement.
quote:Right - so PM10 particles, emitted by diesels aren't in anyway carcinogenic or likely to cause or aggravate asthma and emphysema?
http://depts.washington.edu/aptc/
quote:
Toxic Particulate Air Pollutant Emissions from Diesel Engines
It has been reported by the California Air Resources Board (and the California South Coast Air Quality Management District study) that diesel engine particulate matter appears to be responsible for over 70% of the cancer risk from air pollution exposure in California. The cancer risk is in the range of about 1000 diesel exhaust caused cancers per million people over 70 years. The California EPA reports that the unit cancer risk factor for diesel engine exhaust particles (PM10) is 0.0003 cancer risk / (microgram PM10 particles/cubic meter air). The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) have news releases regarding their concerns of the risk of cancer posed by airborne diesel engine emitted particulates. Ch 8 of the EPA Health Effects Document for Diesel Exhaust reports the environmental cancer risk for exposure to diesel exhaust may range from 10 to 1000 per million people assuming that the cancer risk is linearly proportional to total lifetime exposure. The EPA study did not address the two segments of the population which may be at higher risk: children who may be more sensitive to early life diesel exhaust exposure and those who are additionally exposed to non-road sources of diesel exhaust. The EPA declined to provide a cancer unit risk factor for diesel exhaust. In July 2001, EPA announced a diesel particulate filter retrofit program for the Puget Sound area of Washington State.
Links to some web sites on diesel particulate emissions are shown below.
No, I have seen the light and I now believe every word the government tells me. The fact is (based on suitably adjusted figures), Britain is conjested, polluted and there are lots of people speeding around at 35mph killing people.
That's why when I go to the Bahamas next month for work, I shall be claiming asylum as it is too dangerous for me to return to my home country.
Ian A.
That's why when I go to the Bahamas next month for work, I shall be claiming asylum as it is too dangerous for me to return to my home country.
Ian A.
Carzee,
"It has been reported by the California Air Resources Board (and the California South Coast Air Quality Management District study) that diesel engine particulate matter appears to be responsible for over 70% of the cancer risk from air pollution exposure in California. The cancer risk is in the range of about 1000 diesel exhaust caused cancers per million people over 70 years. The California EPA reports that the unit cancer risk factor for diesel engine exhaust particles (PM10) is 0.0003 cancer risk / (microgram PM10 particles/cubic meter air). The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) have news releases regarding their concerns of the risk of cancer posed by airborne diesel engine emitted particulates. Ch 8 of the EPA Health Effects Document for Diesel Exhaust reports the environmental cancer risk for exposure to diesel exhaust may range from 10 to 1000 per million people assuming that the cancer risk is linearly proportional to total lifetime exposure. The EPA study did not address the two segments of the population which may be at higher risk: children who may be more sensitive to early life diesel exhaust exposure and those who are additionally exposed to non-road sources of diesel exhaust. The EPA declined to provide a cancer unit risk factor for diesel exhaust. In July 2001, EPA announced a diesel particulate filter retrofit program for the Puget Sound area of Washington State.
Links to some web sites on diesel particulate emissions are shown below."
The important thing about your posting is who published it!!
THE most anti-car State legistator in the US.
You think they only want to ban diesels?????
Pah, you should work for "New Labia" (thanks to who ever came up with that one!) with that amount of SPIN!!
"It has been reported by the California Air Resources Board (and the California South Coast Air Quality Management District study) that diesel engine particulate matter appears to be responsible for over 70% of the cancer risk from air pollution exposure in California. The cancer risk is in the range of about 1000 diesel exhaust caused cancers per million people over 70 years. The California EPA reports that the unit cancer risk factor for diesel engine exhaust particles (PM10) is 0.0003 cancer risk / (microgram PM10 particles/cubic meter air). The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) have news releases regarding their concerns of the risk of cancer posed by airborne diesel engine emitted particulates. Ch 8 of the EPA Health Effects Document for Diesel Exhaust reports the environmental cancer risk for exposure to diesel exhaust may range from 10 to 1000 per million people assuming that the cancer risk is linearly proportional to total lifetime exposure. The EPA study did not address the two segments of the population which may be at higher risk: children who may be more sensitive to early life diesel exhaust exposure and those who are additionally exposed to non-road sources of diesel exhaust. The EPA declined to provide a cancer unit risk factor for diesel exhaust. In July 2001, EPA announced a diesel particulate filter retrofit program for the Puget Sound area of Washington State.
Links to some web sites on diesel particulate emissions are shown below."
The important thing about your posting is who published it!!
THE most anti-car State legistator in the US.
You think they only want to ban diesels?????
Pah, you should work for "New Labia" (thanks to who ever came up with that one!) with that amount of SPIN!!
quote:Right - so PM10 particles, emitted by diesels aren't in anyway carcinogenic or likely to cause or aggravate asthma and emphysema?
Nit-picky, but PM10s are particulates up to 10 microns in size - not necessarily sub-micron.
Also a couple of articles in the Edinburgh Evening News last night and the Scotsman this morning include the following key phrases (sorry, online reference requires registration - if there's interest, can post entire articles)
Buses contribute to up to 50 per cent of the emissions at most of the city’s hotspots.
Scrapping of older vehicles will be sought since 10 per cent of buses on Edinburgh’s streets account for almost two-thirds of damaging nitrogen dioxide emissions.
Excuse me if I'm being a bit dumb here, but won't the closure of one congested road simply create more congestion elsewhere? So how does this work exactly? Where is the empirical evidence that shows that closing a road reduces pollution? God, I feel really thick today, sorry, can someone who is feeling a bit brainier explain it to me please?
quote:
quote:Right - so PM10 particles, emitted by diesels aren't in anyway carcinogenic or likely to cause or aggravate asthma and emphysema?
Nit-picky, but PM10s are particulates up to 10 microns in size - not necessarily sub-micron.
Also a couple of articles in the Edinburgh Evening News last night and the Scotsman this morning include the following key phrases (sorry, online reference requires registration - if there's interest, can post entire articles)
Buses contribute to up to 50 per cent of the emissions at most of the city’s hotspots.
Scrapping of older vehicles will be sought since 10 per cent of buses on Edinburgh’s streets account for almost two-thirds of damaging nitrogen dioxide emissions.
True, but IIRC then the latest regs (due for 2005 and so on) requires that PM10s and lower get measured. and the number of smaller particles is immense. As you can imagine, this is another topis which starts out simply (get rid of soot) then gets more complicated as you start to actually measure and count the particulates that come form exhausts. The measuring equipment gets better, you find out more etc etc etc.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff