EU Commission launches legal action over UK air quality

[ItalianTuneUp]

Interesting that Germany appears to have twice as many sites with the highest concentrations of Nitrous oxide than us and yet they have taken much stronger measures than us in restricting the use of older less green diesels.

They must have more cows than us I guess.

I remember reading that Stuttgart has high NOx levels due to the fact that it is in a basin (many hills) and so on windless days the pollution just sits there.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

So it appears that the obsessional drive to reduce CO2 at any cost, has been at the cost of our health, in the form of more diesel cars on the road and newer petrol engines that create more particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5).

Marvellous.

 

[Spinal]

Anointing with patchouli oil during a Gaia mother earth initiation rite will definitely save the universe / planet / whatever, 97% of Grant Seeking scientists said so!

Right, so I'm a self-proclaimed tree-hugger. In my younger years, I was awards some ambassador thing from the WWF for work done towards saving the Antarctic. I really was in to it.

Then I realized something - we aren't really trying to save the earth. The earth will live on, the various animal species will re-evolve, and everything will continue as normal; potentially minus humans. If temperatures rise to 80C, all the land floods, etc, etc, etc - at the end of the day, something will survive... and it won't be humanity.

So really, when someone (like I used to) says "save the earth" - do they mean save the earth, or save humans?

I still have my WWF standing order, and am still happy to support their work - but I've become quite a bit more cynical...

M.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

So really, when someone (like I used to) says "save the earth" - do they mean save the earth, or save humans?

I expect the people who say 'save the earth' mean the same as you meant when you said it. What that is though, as you say, who knows?

 

[Teflonso]

Which is the bigger evil, Co2, No2 or PM2.5s?

Dunno. Which would you prefer for your kids, ****nic, strychnine or a bullet between the eyes?

As others point out, CO2 isn't a problem per se. Not for you and me. But for my grandkids, well that's a different issue. I don't care if the Somerset Levels flood permamently in 2050 but I would be a little worried if the temperature of the entire planet rose by 4 degrees before I'm pushing up dasies.

The government is using CO2 as the easiest proxy for measuring the amount of fuel that cars consume. Simple as that. The lower the CO2, the better our balance of payments and the less long term global warming. Sadly, no-one is really serious about reducing CO2 emissions because everyone is pointing at someone else (usually the Chinese) and the most influential people in the US still believe the earth is flat. So until New York and Beijing get washed away not much is going to happen.

Now let's turn to NOx. Nitrogen peroxide (NO2) doesn't cause much global warming, so that's okay. Engines produce either NO2, or NO, which gets oxidised environmentally to NO2 anyway. Problem is, NO2 is a horrible looking brown gas that is highly poisonous and in smaller quantities is a massive irritant to eyes and lungs. Normal atmospheric levels have been implicated in sensitising people to hay fever, asthma and a host of other allergies. Most of the yellow smog that hangs over natural basin cities like LA is down to NOx, mixed with a good helping of PMs. Want to live in a smoggy city folks? I thought not. Look on the bright side though, when it rains the NO2 gets washed out as acid rain.

PM 2.5s? Now there's the question. In principle, get PMs in your lungs and you up your chances of lung cancer. Get them into your blood stream and you increase your chances of other cancers, plus heart disease. So, which flavour of cancer would you like to take the chance of dying from?

I guess it's just like the smoking debate. I have no objections if people want to smoke and kill themselves early, so long as they don't labour about it and end up consuming a lot of NHS resources. If they check out early it leaves more in the pension pot for me. But no thanks, I don't want your second hand smoke, I don't even want to stand beside you in a lift, close to the stink on your clothing. By the same token, I don't see why people shouldn't be protected as best possible from the effects of me driving past with my boot to the floor and why I shouldn't be cajoled into driving something less polluting.

At the very least, being pushed to buy more economical cars means that we're less reliant on the vaguaries of blokes with beards and cockeyed views about the way the world should be. At best, my great grandkids will get to live in a world as pleasant as the one I've been enjoying.

The idea of saying that reducing CO2 emissions has caused NOx and PMs to rise is hogwash. It's like saying you can't treat bunions, a broken arm and the squits at the same time. It's simply that as always, manufacturers have been doing the very least they have to do, which in the commercial world means improving economy (i.e. lower CO2), so unless they do other things as well the NOx and (sometimes) PMs rise.

Rant over, need to start on the weekend wine early.


.

 

[markjay]

...without CO2, and then there'd be no food.

...and no sparkling water

 

[whitenemesis]

...and no sparkling water

or champagne, or beer

 

[Dieselman]

The health benefits of DPF is in that it reduces the number of large airborne particles which Disel engines emit. The large particles can settle in the lungs and cause long term health issues (similar to how asbestos exposure can cause cancer in later life).

.

That must be why the HSE 50 year study found no health issues related to working in diesel fumes.

The large particles are easily coughed up from the lungs, it's the ultra-fine PM2.5 and smaller, which are the problem due to being so fine they can pass through the lung wall into the blood stream

Petrol engines emit more ultra-fine particles by volume.

DPF are the biggest con going. They pander to those that think diesel emissions are harmful because they can see them.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

Interesting info DM.

So, in your opinion, relating to particulate matter, which is worst, breathing in petrol or diesel exhaust fumes? Sounds like petrol from what you say. And this seems at odds to what we have been told/led to believe.

 

[Dieselman]

You can't kill yourself with diesel fumes...

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

I added the word 'exhaust' to fumes, because that's really what I meant. Does it make a difference?

 

[Dieselman]

No.

You can gas yourself with any petrol engine, but can't with a diesel.

 

[mejermy]

And this seems at odds to what we have been told/led to believe.

Maybe, but not by me. I think I started the PM size element of this particular thread, and I'm of the view that we inhale much particle matter in life - dust and pollen for example in a pre industrial environment, and we are designed to cope with that. So coughing up muck and evacuating it fore or aft, but within seconds or at most hours, is not a problem for our system. Equally so for PM10s.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

Well, I learn something every day. When did you last try this out? Asked to DM

 

[Dieselman]

Equally so for PM10s.

PM10 are OK, it's ultra-fine PM2.5 and smaller are the problem.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

So from a PM point of view, petrol engines are the bete noire, and not diesel engines?

 

[Dieselman]

Well, I learn something every day. When did you last try this out?

I've read of it and know[/a] knew someone that gassed themselves with a modern petrol car.

A diesel engine has so much free oxygen in the mixture, it's impossible to gas yourself.

It is the abundance of free oxygen caused the higher Nox output, but in reality, that is such a small percentage of the overall output, it's not worth bothering about. It is, however classed as a local pollutant.

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

Well, thanks for educating me on this 'matter'...I'll get me coat

 

[grober]

No.

You can gas yourself with any petrol engine, but can't with a diesel.

NOT----- strictly true I'm afraid.

The Leuchter Report: Fumes from a diesel engine are not toxic enough to kill people.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/bjim/Prattle.pdf

It may be of interest to note the establishment those guys worked at that wrote the second paper .

 

[Dieselman]

NOT----- strictly true I'm afraid.

The Leuchter Report: Fumes from a diesel engine are not toxic enough to kill people.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/bjim/Prattle.pdf

It may be of interest to note the establishment those guys worked at that wrote the second paper .

So to make it toxic enough they blanked the intake and added significant engine load.

A nice, realistic test...

Your "scientific" journals seem more like sensationalist media than decent reading material.

was partly closed with a metal blank. The load consisted only of the accessories. The area covered was adjusted by experiment to give continuous white smoke from the exhaust.