Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
Feb 29th 2004, 9:20 am
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion
Dans l'article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Tam) a écrit :
> Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
> By John Burgess
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Saturday, February 28, 2004; Page A13
> BERLIN -- The Kia automobile carrying a young woman and her 2-year-old
> daughter was moving down the high-speed lane of the autobahn. Rolf
> Fischer, a 34-year-old test driver for DaimlerChrysler, was
> approaching from behind, in a powerful Mercedes Benz CL600.
> His speed was not unusual on the long stretches of German highways,
> where drivers can legally go as fast as they want: about 155 mph.
> As he closed in on the Kia, a court later found, he flashed his
> headlights to signal he wanted the lane cleared. But the woman driving
> the Kia apparently became spooked. She swerved, lost control and went
> off the road, striking two trees. She and her daughter died instantly.
> Last week, after a trial covered closely by the German news media, a
> court convicted Fischer of negligent manslaughter in the July 2003
> deaths and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
> Germany's world-famous right to speed was not on trial, but its
> opponents have seized on the verdict to renew long-standing demands
> for controls. Senior politicians in the ruling Social Democrat-Green
> coalition have declared that the time has come for limits, arguing
> that it's only common sense that slowing down would save lives.
I have read the following posts on this thread. I live in France, but I
have on occasion driven on German autobahns. I continue to drive on French
autoroutes, the latest occasion being this afternoon, where the same problem
exists to a certain degree as well, although the police are now making a
concerted effort to crack down on tailgaters and speeders.
My own advice, after thirty years of driving in Europe, which I hope could
help tourists from outside Europe:
You are from time to time going to have to get into the lefthand lane to
pass the truck that any average tortoise would go speeding by. If someone
comes barreling down on you, blinking their lights, hold firm. Do not
panic. Wait until the moment is safe before getting over again to the
right. I know this is very hard to do. But it is something you must do for
your own safety. I say this as a 68-year-old woman. But with lots of
experience.
Obviously you will not want to pass unless you absolutely have to. But
sometimes you just must, since people will cut out around you, and put
themselves - and potentially you - in danger if the line behind you builds
up too far.
To summarize: do what is safe. Do not do what other drivers are trying to
pressure you into doing.
Donna Evleth
>
[email protected] (Tam) a écrit :
> Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
> By John Burgess
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Saturday, February 28, 2004; Page A13
> BERLIN -- The Kia automobile carrying a young woman and her 2-year-old
> daughter was moving down the high-speed lane of the autobahn. Rolf
> Fischer, a 34-year-old test driver for DaimlerChrysler, was
> approaching from behind, in a powerful Mercedes Benz CL600.
> His speed was not unusual on the long stretches of German highways,
> where drivers can legally go as fast as they want: about 155 mph.
> As he closed in on the Kia, a court later found, he flashed his
> headlights to signal he wanted the lane cleared. But the woman driving
> the Kia apparently became spooked. She swerved, lost control and went
> off the road, striking two trees. She and her daughter died instantly.
> Last week, after a trial covered closely by the German news media, a
> court convicted Fischer of negligent manslaughter in the July 2003
> deaths and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
> Germany's world-famous right to speed was not on trial, but its
> opponents have seized on the verdict to renew long-standing demands
> for controls. Senior politicians in the ruling Social Democrat-Green
> coalition have declared that the time has come for limits, arguing
> that it's only common sense that slowing down would save lives.
I have read the following posts on this thread. I live in France, but I
have on occasion driven on German autobahns. I continue to drive on French
autoroutes, the latest occasion being this afternoon, where the same problem
exists to a certain degree as well, although the police are now making a
concerted effort to crack down on tailgaters and speeders.
My own advice, after thirty years of driving in Europe, which I hope could
help tourists from outside Europe:
You are from time to time going to have to get into the lefthand lane to
pass the truck that any average tortoise would go speeding by. If someone
comes barreling down on you, blinking their lights, hold firm. Do not
panic. Wait until the moment is safe before getting over again to the
right. I know this is very hard to do. But it is something you must do for
your own safety. I say this as a 68-year-old woman. But with lots of
experience.
Obviously you will not want to pass unless you absolutely have to. But
sometimes you just must, since people will cut out around you, and put
themselves - and potentially you - in danger if the line behind you builds
up too far.
To summarize: do what is safe. Do not do what other drivers are trying to
pressure you into doing.
Donna Evleth
>
Mar 1st 2004, 2:20 am
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:56:27 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
> At this point it is just a tragic auto accident, do you know how many
> of these happen everyday ?
Yep, and road deaths on German roads are down to a historic minimum (as to
actual figures of 2003), even though we don't have speed-limits on all
roads.
Regrads,
Frank
> At this point it is just a tragic auto accident, do you know how many
> of these happen everyday ?
Yep, and road deaths on German roads are down to a historic minimum (as to
actual figures of 2003), even though we don't have speed-limits on all
roads.
Regrads,
Frank
Mar 1st 2004, 2:46 am
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink
On 1/03/04 16:20, in article [email protected],
"Frank Hucklenbroich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:56:27 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
>
>> At this point it is just a tragic auto accident, do you know how many
>> of these happen everyday ?
>
> Yep, and road deaths on German roads are down to a historic minimum (as to
> actual figures of 2003), even though we don't have speed-limits on all
> roads.
One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to air
pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise with the
speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the emission.
So far there is no catalyst to revert nitrogen oxdies back to oxygen and
nitrogen, so the final deposition of the Nox is in the form of nitric acid.
Vehicular nitrogen oxides play a role in acid rain which is a problem in
Germany. So deaths are occurring other than on the roads.
Earl
****
"Rain water in Central Europe could, as a consequence of atmospheric
carbon dioxide content and naturally occurring trace substances, have an
acidity (pH value) of something between 4.6 and 5.6 pH. In fact, the pH
value for rain water in Germany lies on average between 4.0 and 4.6 pH,
which corresponds to up to 40 times natural acidity levels. As analysis of
water precipitation has shown, this over-acidification is due to sulphuric
and nitric acid content. These acids are formed in the atmosphere as a
consequence of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides pollution. The
consequences of acid precipitation were first observed in Scandinavian
countries (e.g. in the death of freshwater fish). For some years, increased
damage to forests, but also increasingly contamination of water resources,
have been occurring in Central Europe, including Germany. Bodies of water
can undergo changes in their pH values, and thereby become "acidified to
death". The consequence is a gradual dying out of microorganisms and larger
organisms which are sensitive to changes in acidity, for example snails,
mussels, leeches, crustaceans, mayfly larvae and fish. An indirect
consequence - of acidification is the release of heavy metals (e.g.
aluminium) from sediment on the beds of water bodies. This process can
prove fatal for some organisms. During winter months, the time at which
sulphur dioxide concentrations are at their highest, acidic sulphur
compounds can collect in snow, leading to a sudden, extremely heavy
acidification of water bodies when the snow melts.
"Frank Hucklenbroich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:56:27 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
>
>> At this point it is just a tragic auto accident, do you know how many
>> of these happen everyday ?
>
> Yep, and road deaths on German roads are down to a historic minimum (as to
> actual figures of 2003), even though we don't have speed-limits on all
> roads.
One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to air
pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise with the
speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the emission.
So far there is no catalyst to revert nitrogen oxdies back to oxygen and
nitrogen, so the final deposition of the Nox is in the form of nitric acid.
Vehicular nitrogen oxides play a role in acid rain which is a problem in
Germany. So deaths are occurring other than on the roads.
Earl
****
"Rain water in Central Europe could, as a consequence of atmospheric
carbon dioxide content and naturally occurring trace substances, have an
acidity (pH value) of something between 4.6 and 5.6 pH. In fact, the pH
value for rain water in Germany lies on average between 4.0 and 4.6 pH,
which corresponds to up to 40 times natural acidity levels. As analysis of
water precipitation has shown, this over-acidification is due to sulphuric
and nitric acid content. These acids are formed in the atmosphere as a
consequence of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides pollution. The
consequences of acid precipitation were first observed in Scandinavian
countries (e.g. in the death of freshwater fish). For some years, increased
damage to forests, but also increasingly contamination of water resources,
have been occurring in Central Europe, including Germany. Bodies of water
can undergo changes in their pH values, and thereby become "acidified to
death". The consequence is a gradual dying out of microorganisms and larger
organisms which are sensitive to changes in acidity, for example snails,
mussels, leeches, crustaceans, mayfly larvae and fish. An indirect
consequence - of acidification is the release of heavy metals (e.g.
aluminium) from sediment on the beds of water bodies. This process can
prove fatal for some organisms. During winter months, the time at which
sulphur dioxide concentrations are at their highest, acidic sulphur
compounds can collect in snow, leading to a sudden, extremely heavy
acidification of water bodies when the snow melts.
Mar 1st 2004, 3:03 am
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:34:38 -0600, Olivers wrote:
> A. The number of vehicles per 100,000 people is substantially higher in
> the US. Using that modifier, driving in the US may actually be safer than
> in german.
What makes you think that ?
These figures are a bit old at 1997 but the first ones I found.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm
Germay 0.511
USA 0.481 per capita.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
> A. The number of vehicles per 100,000 people is substantially higher in
> the US. Using that modifier, driving in the US may actually be safer than
> in german.
What makes you think that ?
These figures are a bit old at 1997 but the first ones I found.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm
Germay 0.511
USA 0.481 per capita.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Mar 1st 2004, 3:39 am
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to RethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC691962.285BF%[email protected]...
> On 1/03/04 16:20, in article [email protected],
> "Frank Hucklenbroich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:56:27 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
> >
> >> At this point it is just a tragic auto accident, do you know how many
> >> of these happen everyday ?
> >
> > Yep, and road deaths on German roads are down to a historic minimum (as
to
> > actual figures of 2003), even though we don't have speed-limits on all
> > roads.
> One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to
air
> pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise with
the
> speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the emission.
Yes I've seen that, its a genuinely silly assertion when you realise
that only 4% of deaths in the USA result from pulmonary
disease. Do you really believe that ALL lung disease in the
US is caused by NO2 ? If so presumably those studies blaming
smoking cigarettes are wrong.
> So far there is no catalyst to revert nitrogen oxdies back to oxygen and
> nitrogen, so the final deposition of the Nox is in the form of nitric
acid.
Incorrect , 3 way catalytic converters reduce NOx emissions by converting
them into N2 and H2O. NOx emissions are routinely monitored
during vehicle checks to ensure the catalytic converter is
still working. A typical converter reduces NOx emissions
of an engine working at 50% power from 2300 ppm to 20 ppm.
On testing modern converters reduce NOx by 99.1%, CO by 85%
and Hydrocarbons by 96%
> Vehicular nitrogen oxides play a role in acid rain which is a problem in
> Germany. So deaths are occurring other than on the roads.
However the single largest contributor to acid rain is the industrial
and domestic use of fossil fuels, especially coal burnt in electrical
generation and the smelting of metals and these sources dont have
catalytic converters fitted.
For this reason use of electric vehicles typically involves GREATER
emissions of pollutants than modern petrol and diesel engined cars
unless the electricity comes from a low pollution source such
as wind, wave, solar or nuclear power.
Keith
news:BC691962.285BF%[email protected]...
> On 1/03/04 16:20, in article [email protected],
> "Frank Hucklenbroich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:56:27 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
> >
> >> At this point it is just a tragic auto accident, do you know how many
> >> of these happen everyday ?
> >
> > Yep, and road deaths on German roads are down to a historic minimum (as
to
> > actual figures of 2003), even though we don't have speed-limits on all
> > roads.
> One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to
air
> pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise with
the
> speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the emission.
Yes I've seen that, its a genuinely silly assertion when you realise
that only 4% of deaths in the USA result from pulmonary
disease. Do you really believe that ALL lung disease in the
US is caused by NO2 ? If so presumably those studies blaming
smoking cigarettes are wrong.
> So far there is no catalyst to revert nitrogen oxdies back to oxygen and
> nitrogen, so the final deposition of the Nox is in the form of nitric
acid.
Incorrect , 3 way catalytic converters reduce NOx emissions by converting
them into N2 and H2O. NOx emissions are routinely monitored
during vehicle checks to ensure the catalytic converter is
still working. A typical converter reduces NOx emissions
of an engine working at 50% power from 2300 ppm to 20 ppm.
On testing modern converters reduce NOx by 99.1%, CO by 85%
and Hydrocarbons by 96%
> Vehicular nitrogen oxides play a role in acid rain which is a problem in
> Germany. So deaths are occurring other than on the roads.
However the single largest contributor to acid rain is the industrial
and domestic use of fossil fuels, especially coal burnt in electrical
generation and the smelting of metals and these sources dont have
catalytic converters fitted.
For this reason use of electric vehicles typically involves GREATER
emissions of pollutants than modern petrol and diesel engined cars
unless the electricity comes from a low pollution source such
as wind, wave, solar or nuclear power.
Keith
Mar 1st 2004, 5:52 am
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
On 2004-02-29, Donna Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are from time to time going to have to get into the lefthand lane to
> pass the truck that any average tortoise would go speeding by.
And while doing so, _please_ speed up. It gets you out of the way much
faster, for the benefit of both you and the other drivers.
> You are from time to time going to have to get into the lefthand lane to
> pass the truck that any average tortoise would go speeding by.
And while doing so, _please_ speed up. It gets you out of the way much
faster, for the benefit of both you and the other drivers.
Mar 1st 2004, 10:34 am
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion
sascha schrieb:
>
> "Tim Kroesen" wrote
>
> > ... I'm surprised Germany has such unlimited fuel supply and pollution
> > tolerance to allow 'unlimited' highway speeds...
> >
> > In the US speed limits were reduced on interstates to save fuel
> > nationally.
>
> Oh, that apparently compensates for driving gas guzzlers like the SUV's.
> I'm impressed, how smart.
SUVs are not just an American phenomenom. All the German manufacturers
now have SUVs. Not only are they major export items, they are also very
popular in Germany- amazingly, there is a tax break for vehicles over
2.6 tons weight.
>
> "Tim Kroesen" wrote
>
> > ... I'm surprised Germany has such unlimited fuel supply and pollution
> > tolerance to allow 'unlimited' highway speeds...
> >
> > In the US speed limits were reduced on interstates to save fuel
> > nationally.
>
> Oh, that apparently compensates for driving gas guzzlers like the SUV's.
> I'm impressed, how smart.
SUVs are not just an American phenomenom. All the German manufacturers
now have SUVs. Not only are they major export items, they are also very
popular in Germany- amazingly, there is a tax break for vehicles over
2.6 tons weight.
Mar 1st 2004, 7:18 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink
On 1/03/04 19:52, in article [email protected],
"Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2004-02-29, Donna Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You are from time to time going to have to get into the lefthand lane to
>> pass the truck that any average tortoise would go speeding by.
>
> And while doing so, _please_ speed up.
In order to pass, one has no choice!
A 1500 cc car does not have the acceleration power of a 4 liter monster at
130 km! I think it safe to say that SOME owners of large cars have a
superiority complex and want others to recognize that! There are few really
slow cars on the road now, the 2CV are collector cars and no
Trabis to speak of. But in some countries a vehicular arms race is
occurring safer one feels. So the vehicular arrogance factor is increasing.
What is needed is a 60 ton fast tank equipped with weapons to blow
away the "enemy". :-)
One major problem tourists driving in a particular country have to
adapt to is the driving conditions. Those in the country have to
adjust to the tourists. But the host country has its laws and that is
the first priority.
There are particular problems on French autoroutes. The
130 km speed limit which can be pushed to 150. But at 50 km
above the speed limit (180) the French police will stop and yank the driving
permits of those breaking the law. So the drivers are abandoned
to calling a hauling service unless another person in the car has a drivers
permit. It is not that rare to read of a German in his Porshe stopped
for doing 220 km in France. I actually propose confiscation of the car
but that French have not gotten that tough yet.
Only powerfull cars cars which are capable of reaching
200+km. . The standard 1500 cc smaller cars can reach 180 but
generally are not driven over 150-160m km which is already well above
the speed limit.
With the current cracking down on speeders, the installation of automatic
radar, the top speeds on the French autoroutes have visibly dropped.
Near the cities, the speeds drop to 110 or 90 and these are even
more obeyed now.
Next, autoroute truck speeds are more rigorously enforced since they
individually have speed recording devices in their trucks. They
are limited to 90km and rarely will one see one going at 100 or slightly
over. They keep in the right hand lane. During the week the right hand
lane of the autoroutes are charged with trucks and if the autoroute
section has only two lane, the left lane nearly becomes the cruising
lane. To stay in that lane one has to keep at 130-140, unless the
traffic density is too high to maintain that. Moving back into the
right hand truck lane risks getting stuck there for a while.
When the left hand lane is sufficiently charged with traffic, French
drivers in their larger cars who would normally charge up behind
a "slow driver" moving at 130 and flash him, don`t. Getting by the
person in front of "you" just puts you behind another person, and
since there are cars as far as the eye can see in the left lane
there is no use. This ³cruising lane² will slow up if somebody
pulls out to pass a truck from the right hand land. Since he
was doing 90 behind the truck, he can not immediately reach
130 so that can cause a slow down. As the ³cruising² lane
saturates it slows down, and below a certain speed, like 80km
the lane may actually stop, going into an undulating pattern
of stopping and starting. These are the ³bouchons², the bottle
neck areas of highway traffic dynamics. If these occur suddenly
and a rear ender occurs, the resulting traffic jam will finalize
itself.
Summer driving in France is particularly irritating since there are a lot
of slow cars pulling trailers, small campers, boats, added to the truck
traffic. One just has to accept these conditions and most people do.
No choice.
The problem on the German autoroutes for a visiting driver is the high
differential speeds. In passing a truck, even when one is doing at 140,
is a tortoise speed to a BMW owning speed demon. The closing time of some
speed demons coming in the left hand lane at 210 is fast. So if one looks at
one's mirror before pulling out one sees somebody way back and suddenly
when you are out there passing he is closing down really fast and flashing
his lights like mad. At night it is harder to judge how far back the demon
is. As a consequence, a French driver in Germany is faced with more
stressful autoroute driving than in France. The German driver in France
is faced with a speed limit which is irritating to him but also a
French driver who may not move over at the speed a German is used to.
Each country, in fact each region has its own driving practices. We
returned a couple of weeks from from the Fort Lauderdale area of
Florida. The road traffic there is dense, travels at higher speeds
with more nearly bumper to bumper conditions. Trucks have the same
speed limit so even in the fast lane one has monster behind you following.
And drivers are more like to charge up from behind than in France.
One adjusts in a week or so of driving under these conditions.
Earl
"Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2004-02-29, Donna Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You are from time to time going to have to get into the lefthand lane to
>> pass the truck that any average tortoise would go speeding by.
>
> And while doing so, _please_ speed up.
In order to pass, one has no choice!
A 1500 cc car does not have the acceleration power of a 4 liter monster at
130 km! I think it safe to say that SOME owners of large cars have a
superiority complex and want others to recognize that! There are few really
slow cars on the road now, the 2CV are collector cars and no
Trabis to speak of. But in some countries a vehicular arms race is
occurring safer one feels. So the vehicular arrogance factor is increasing.
What is needed is a 60 ton fast tank equipped with weapons to blow
away the "enemy". :-)
One major problem tourists driving in a particular country have to
adapt to is the driving conditions. Those in the country have to
adjust to the tourists. But the host country has its laws and that is
the first priority.
There are particular problems on French autoroutes. The
130 km speed limit which can be pushed to 150. But at 50 km
above the speed limit (180) the French police will stop and yank the driving
permits of those breaking the law. So the drivers are abandoned
to calling a hauling service unless another person in the car has a drivers
permit. It is not that rare to read of a German in his Porshe stopped
for doing 220 km in France. I actually propose confiscation of the car
but that French have not gotten that tough yet.
Only powerfull cars cars which are capable of reaching
200+km. . The standard 1500 cc smaller cars can reach 180 but
generally are not driven over 150-160m km which is already well above
the speed limit.
With the current cracking down on speeders, the installation of automatic
radar, the top speeds on the French autoroutes have visibly dropped.
Near the cities, the speeds drop to 110 or 90 and these are even
more obeyed now.
Next, autoroute truck speeds are more rigorously enforced since they
individually have speed recording devices in their trucks. They
are limited to 90km and rarely will one see one going at 100 or slightly
over. They keep in the right hand lane. During the week the right hand
lane of the autoroutes are charged with trucks and if the autoroute
section has only two lane, the left lane nearly becomes the cruising
lane. To stay in that lane one has to keep at 130-140, unless the
traffic density is too high to maintain that. Moving back into the
right hand truck lane risks getting stuck there for a while.
When the left hand lane is sufficiently charged with traffic, French
drivers in their larger cars who would normally charge up behind
a "slow driver" moving at 130 and flash him, don`t. Getting by the
person in front of "you" just puts you behind another person, and
since there are cars as far as the eye can see in the left lane
there is no use. This ³cruising lane² will slow up if somebody
pulls out to pass a truck from the right hand land. Since he
was doing 90 behind the truck, he can not immediately reach
130 so that can cause a slow down. As the ³cruising² lane
saturates it slows down, and below a certain speed, like 80km
the lane may actually stop, going into an undulating pattern
of stopping and starting. These are the ³bouchons², the bottle
neck areas of highway traffic dynamics. If these occur suddenly
and a rear ender occurs, the resulting traffic jam will finalize
itself.
Summer driving in France is particularly irritating since there are a lot
of slow cars pulling trailers, small campers, boats, added to the truck
traffic. One just has to accept these conditions and most people do.
No choice.
The problem on the German autoroutes for a visiting driver is the high
differential speeds. In passing a truck, even when one is doing at 140,
is a tortoise speed to a BMW owning speed demon. The closing time of some
speed demons coming in the left hand lane at 210 is fast. So if one looks at
one's mirror before pulling out one sees somebody way back and suddenly
when you are out there passing he is closing down really fast and flashing
his lights like mad. At night it is harder to judge how far back the demon
is. As a consequence, a French driver in Germany is faced with more
stressful autoroute driving than in France. The German driver in France
is faced with a speed limit which is irritating to him but also a
French driver who may not move over at the speed a German is used to.
Each country, in fact each region has its own driving practices. We
returned a couple of weeks from from the Fort Lauderdale area of
Florida. The road traffic there is dense, travels at higher speeds
with more nearly bumper to bumper conditions. Trucks have the same
speed limit so even in the fast lane one has monster behind you following.
And drivers are more like to charge up from behind than in France.
One adjusts in a week or so of driving under these conditions.
Earl
Mar 1st 2004, 7:58 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
Following up to Earl Evleth
>There are few really
>slow cars on the road now, the 2CV are collector cars and no
>Trabis to speak of.
Try my Hyundai Amica 1 litre auto!
BTW didnt we already discuss this?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>There are few really
>slow cars on the road now, the 2CV are collector cars and no
>Trabis to speak of.
Try my Hyundai Amica 1 litre auto!
BTW didnt we already discuss this?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mar 1st 2004, 9:56 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to
On 1/03/04 17:39, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC691962.285BF%[email protected]...
ads.
>>
>> One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to
>> air pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise with
>> the speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the emission.
>>
>
> Yes I've seen that, its a genuinely silly assertion when you realise
> that only 4% of deaths in the USA result from pulmonary
> disease. Do you really believe that ALL lung disease in the
> US is caused by NO2 ? If so presumably those studies blaming
> smoking cigarettes are wrong.
I said air pollution contributing to deaths, not only pulmonary diseases.
In the US statistics, 1998, of the 2,338,000 deaths, chronic pulmonary
diseases were 114,000. Lung cancers were 159,000, pneumonia was separately
estimated at 95,000. I see no problem in getting 30,000 out of all of these
figures for air pollution! The blaming only cigarettes has retreated into
the past, however. Now the combination of smoking and living in the city
is worse! Nobody has let tobacco off the hook. It is only that air
pollution has been added to the list of "suspects".
Following is Guardian on a WHO report in 2000 published in Lancet,
which is a respected medical review.
Since US SO2 and Nox emissions exceed those in Western Europe my
expectations would be that the "European" figure (west Europe) would
be lower than the US. So I see no basis to challenge the 30,000 figure.
They are guessimates, however. I think the current big worry is
about particulate matter from diesel fuel combustion.
I will get back to the other points you raised in another post.
Earl
****
Traffic fumes 'kill 20,000 people a year in Europe'
by Paul Brown, environment correspondent, The Guardian
Friday September 1, 2000
About twice as many people are killed each year in Europe by air pollution
as die in road traffic accidents, according to research sponsored by the
world health organisation published today in the Lancet.
Analysis of deaths in France, Austria and Switzerland shows 6% of all deaths
- around 40,000 a year - stem from air pollution, around half due to tiny
particles in vehicle exhausts, particularly diesel. In addition, traffic
causes 25,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis in adults, 290,000 cases in
children and more than 500,000 asthma attacks.
The research says motorists do not pay for the true cost that driving
imposes on society.
The Lancet says in an editorial that if the cost of motoring on the health
service was taken into account, spending on better public transport would
appear far more reasonable, with taxes and laws to reduce driving more
publicly acceptable.
Estimates by the Department of Health have put deaths from air pollution in
Britain at 10,000 a year.
Yesterday, as a result of the paper, Friends of the Earth said that the
number of British deaths was probably 19,000 a year.
In most of Europe because of the high traffic levels tiny particles, 100th
of a millimetre across, called PM10s, are always present in the air and are
far worse in towns where there is a high population and density of traffic.
On average, including country areas, people are breathing in up to 10
micrograms per cubic metre of these particles, but in city areas it can be
three times as much.
The Lancet paper says that life expectancy is shortened by six months for
each extra 10 micrograms (100th of a gram) of particles in the air. This
means that in cities people die 18 months earlier than they would otherwise.
The research concentrates on the death rates of older people but says there
is increasing evidence that air pollution kills babies and infants.
The WHO commissioned the research because it is concerned about the affect
on human health of air pollution and its economic cost.
Nino Künzli, from Basle university in Switzerland, the lead author, says the
true costs to public health of air pollution are still being studied.
Traffic creates costs to the public health system that are not paid for by
the polluters, he says, such as the loss of clean air, silence and clean
water.
"The project emphasises the need to consider air pollution and
traffic-related air pollution as a widespread cause of impaired health."
Tony Bosworth, air pollution campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said:
"These startling figures show that road traffic is having a dreadful toll on
our health.
"If the impacts are the same in the UK, then nearly 19,000 deaths every year
are due to pollution from road traffic. That's equivalent to a jumbo jet
crashing every 10 days. The government must take tougher action on traffic
levels to reduce this appalling death toll."
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC691962.285BF%[email protected]...
ads.
>>
>> One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to
>> air pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise with
>> the speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the emission.
>>
>
> Yes I've seen that, its a genuinely silly assertion when you realise
> that only 4% of deaths in the USA result from pulmonary
> disease. Do you really believe that ALL lung disease in the
> US is caused by NO2 ? If so presumably those studies blaming
> smoking cigarettes are wrong.
I said air pollution contributing to deaths, not only pulmonary diseases.
In the US statistics, 1998, of the 2,338,000 deaths, chronic pulmonary
diseases were 114,000. Lung cancers were 159,000, pneumonia was separately
estimated at 95,000. I see no problem in getting 30,000 out of all of these
figures for air pollution! The blaming only cigarettes has retreated into
the past, however. Now the combination of smoking and living in the city
is worse! Nobody has let tobacco off the hook. It is only that air
pollution has been added to the list of "suspects".
Following is Guardian on a WHO report in 2000 published in Lancet,
which is a respected medical review.
Since US SO2 and Nox emissions exceed those in Western Europe my
expectations would be that the "European" figure (west Europe) would
be lower than the US. So I see no basis to challenge the 30,000 figure.
They are guessimates, however. I think the current big worry is
about particulate matter from diesel fuel combustion.
I will get back to the other points you raised in another post.
Earl
****
Traffic fumes 'kill 20,000 people a year in Europe'
by Paul Brown, environment correspondent, The Guardian
Friday September 1, 2000
About twice as many people are killed each year in Europe by air pollution
as die in road traffic accidents, according to research sponsored by the
world health organisation published today in the Lancet.
Analysis of deaths in France, Austria and Switzerland shows 6% of all deaths
- around 40,000 a year - stem from air pollution, around half due to tiny
particles in vehicle exhausts, particularly diesel. In addition, traffic
causes 25,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis in adults, 290,000 cases in
children and more than 500,000 asthma attacks.
The research says motorists do not pay for the true cost that driving
imposes on society.
The Lancet says in an editorial that if the cost of motoring on the health
service was taken into account, spending on better public transport would
appear far more reasonable, with taxes and laws to reduce driving more
publicly acceptable.
Estimates by the Department of Health have put deaths from air pollution in
Britain at 10,000 a year.
Yesterday, as a result of the paper, Friends of the Earth said that the
number of British deaths was probably 19,000 a year.
In most of Europe because of the high traffic levels tiny particles, 100th
of a millimetre across, called PM10s, are always present in the air and are
far worse in towns where there is a high population and density of traffic.
On average, including country areas, people are breathing in up to 10
micrograms per cubic metre of these particles, but in city areas it can be
three times as much.
The Lancet paper says that life expectancy is shortened by six months for
each extra 10 micrograms (100th of a gram) of particles in the air. This
means that in cities people die 18 months earlier than they would otherwise.
The research concentrates on the death rates of older people but says there
is increasing evidence that air pollution kills babies and infants.
The WHO commissioned the research because it is concerned about the affect
on human health of air pollution and its economic cost.
Nino Künzli, from Basle university in Switzerland, the lead author, says the
true costs to public health of air pollution are still being studied.
Traffic creates costs to the public health system that are not paid for by
the polluters, he says, such as the loss of clean air, silence and clean
water.
"The project emphasises the need to consider air pollution and
traffic-related air pollution as a widespread cause of impaired health."
Tony Bosworth, air pollution campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said:
"These startling figures show that road traffic is having a dreadful toll on
our health.
"If the impacts are the same in the UK, then nearly 19,000 deaths every year
are due to pollution from road traffic. That's equivalent to a jumbo jet
crashing every 10 days. The government must take tougher action on traffic
levels to reduce this appalling death toll."
Mar 1st 2004, 9:57 pm
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink
On 2/03/04 9:58, in article [email protected], "The
Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> BTW didnt we already discuss this?
The Trabi?
Earl
Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> BTW didnt we already discuss this?
The Trabi?
Earl
Mar 1st 2004, 10:20 pm
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans toRethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6A26FB.286DA%[email protected]...
> On 1/03/04 17:39, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC691962.285BF%[email protected]...
> ads.
> >>
> >> One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to
> >> air pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise
with
> >> the speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the
emission.
> >>
> >
> > Yes I've seen that, its a genuinely silly assertion when you realise
> > that only 4% of deaths in the USA result from pulmonary
> > disease. Do you really believe that ALL lung disease in the
> > US is caused by NO2 ? If so presumably those studies blaming
> > smoking cigarettes are wrong.
> I said air pollution contributing to deaths, not only pulmonary diseases.
> In the US statistics, 1998, of the 2,338,000 deaths, chronic pulmonary
> diseases were 114,000. Lung cancers were 159,000, pneumonia was
separately
> estimated at 95,000. I see no problem in getting 30,000 out of all of
these
> figures for air pollution!
Pneumonia is caused by an infectious agent not NOx and the
studies into lung cancer have concluded that cigarette smoke
accounts for 90% of cases and that the second highest risk factor
us exposure to Radon gas
> The blaming only cigarettes has retreated into
> the past, however. Now the combination of smoking and living in the city
> is worse! Nobody has let tobacco off the hook. It is only that air
> pollution has been added to the list of "suspects".
But smoking is the highest risk factor by a VERY large margin
> Following is Guardian on a WHO report in 2000 published in Lancet,
> which is a respected medical review.
> Since US SO2 and Nox emissions exceed those in Western Europe my
> expectations would be that the "European" figure (west Europe) would
> be lower than the US. So I see no basis to challenge the 30,000 figure.
> They are guessimates, however. I think the current big worry is
> about particulate matter from diesel fuel combustion.
This article of course does not implicate SO2 or NOx as the cause but
particulates which are typically produced by diesel engines and
coal burning. Since diesel engines are used in a very small percentage
of US motor cars this is a poor basis for your conclusions.
Keith
news:BC6A26FB.286DA%[email protected]...
> On 1/03/04 17:39, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC691962.285BF%[email protected]...
> ads.
> >>
> >> One estimate in the US is that 4% of the total deaths are attributed to
> >> air pollution, about 30,000 a year. The nitrogen oxide emissions rise
with
> >> the speed of the vehicule, the more fuel consumed the higher the
emission.
> >>
> >
> > Yes I've seen that, its a genuinely silly assertion when you realise
> > that only 4% of deaths in the USA result from pulmonary
> > disease. Do you really believe that ALL lung disease in the
> > US is caused by NO2 ? If so presumably those studies blaming
> > smoking cigarettes are wrong.
> I said air pollution contributing to deaths, not only pulmonary diseases.
> In the US statistics, 1998, of the 2,338,000 deaths, chronic pulmonary
> diseases were 114,000. Lung cancers were 159,000, pneumonia was
separately
> estimated at 95,000. I see no problem in getting 30,000 out of all of
these
> figures for air pollution!
Pneumonia is caused by an infectious agent not NOx and the
studies into lung cancer have concluded that cigarette smoke
accounts for 90% of cases and that the second highest risk factor
us exposure to Radon gas
> The blaming only cigarettes has retreated into
> the past, however. Now the combination of smoking and living in the city
> is worse! Nobody has let tobacco off the hook. It is only that air
> pollution has been added to the list of "suspects".
But smoking is the highest risk factor by a VERY large margin
> Following is Guardian on a WHO report in 2000 published in Lancet,
> which is a respected medical review.
> Since US SO2 and Nox emissions exceed those in Western Europe my
> expectations would be that the "European" figure (west Europe) would
> be lower than the US. So I see no basis to challenge the 30,000 figure.
> They are guessimates, however. I think the current big worry is
> about particulate matter from diesel fuel combustion.
This article of course does not implicate SO2 or NOx as the cause but
particulates which are typically produced by diesel engines and
coal burning. Since diesel engines are used in a very small percentage
of US motor cars this is a poor basis for your conclusions.
Keith
Mar 2nd 2004, 2:39 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans
On 2/03/04 12:20, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6A26FB.286DA%[email protected]...
!
>
> Pneumonia is caused by an infectious agent not Nox
Which is why old people are susceptible? Not good enough!
Air pollution will weaken a person's resistance, making
them susceptible to a number of diseases.
> and the studies into lung cancer have concluded that cigarette smoke
> accounts for 90% of cases and that the second highest risk factor
> us exposure to Radon gas
Now you are saying that air pollution has NO effect on lung cancer!
More recent studies always revise what was "known" in the past.
Take the following declaration
"Benzo(a)pyrene is widely distributed in the environment as a by-product of
the incomplete combustion and thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of fossil
fuels and organic matter. It is present in tobacco smoke, automobile and
diesel exhaust, barbecue smoke, urban air, coal tar, crude oils, used
lubricating oils, various edible oils and fats, fruits, vegetables and
cereals and natural water, lake sediments and sewage sludge.(1,2) "
Benzopyrene is merely one of a number of carcinogenic PAHs.
> But smoking is the highest risk factor by a VERY large margin
³Very large margin has not been quantified and you know that!
Even if it is 90%, if we take the three numbers I have put forward, chronic
pulmonary diseases = 114,000, lung cancers = 159,000, pneumonia= 95,000
one gets over 300,000. If only 10% of this total is air pollution
related we get 30,000. You have to have a sense of proportion in
this situation. 30,000 is not an outrageous number unless you
are trying to sell automobiles!
> This article of course does not implicate SO2 or NOx as the cause but
> particulates which are typically produced by diesel engines and
> coal burning. Since diesel engines are used in a very small percentage
> of US motor cars this is a poor basis for your conclusions.
>
Note again, I said air pollution. But I will go further. As you well know
NO2 photolysis is is responsible for urban ozone generation. Ozone is
destructive to biologicals and also reactions with organics giving,
eventually peroxides which in turn reaction with NO to regenerate NO2 (via
peroxynitrates). These interim derivatives are highly irritating
(many a time tears ran down my face driving in LA smog). Now you are
telling me not of this is dangerous to living systems!
Next, nitric acid directly nitrates a number of things, which is why
one`s skin turns yellow when reacts with the stuff. Sulfuric acid
has never had a kindly image. Now you claim that all this is for naught!
Excess nitrates in drinking water presents a problem as you will know.
At stomach pHs it is nitric acid.
What to other people besides yourself claim?
If you Google ³cancer acid rain² you will get 90,000 hits.
The US government, now controlled by the most anti-environmental
administration in American history say things like-----
www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd95/acidrain.html
"Health and Environmental Effects: Before falling to Earth, SO 2and NOx
gases and related particulate matter (sulfates and nitrates) contribute to
poor visibility and impact public health. Major human health concerns
associated with their exposure include effects on breathing and the
respiratory system, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. In
the environment, acid rain raises the acid levels of lakes and streams
(making the water unsuitable for some fish and other wildlife) and damages
trees at high elevations. It also speeds up the decay of buildings, statues,
and sculptures, including those that are part of our national heritage."
We simply do not know at this time how important the environmental effects
are. You perhaps are too young to remember, but in my living memory was
the claim that smoking did not cause lung cancer. This disinformation
was spread by those who smoke and the industry.
The question to ask is whether there exists a vested interest today
in rejecting the role of air pollution in causing human diseases?
Of course there is, the automobile and fuel industry and the user
community play the same role as the tobacco industry smokers did years
ago.
Earl
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6A26FB.286DA%[email protected]...
!
>
> Pneumonia is caused by an infectious agent not Nox
Which is why old people are susceptible? Not good enough!
Air pollution will weaken a person's resistance, making
them susceptible to a number of diseases.
> and the studies into lung cancer have concluded that cigarette smoke
> accounts for 90% of cases and that the second highest risk factor
> us exposure to Radon gas
Now you are saying that air pollution has NO effect on lung cancer!
More recent studies always revise what was "known" in the past.
Take the following declaration
"Benzo(a)pyrene is widely distributed in the environment as a by-product of
the incomplete combustion and thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of fossil
fuels and organic matter. It is present in tobacco smoke, automobile and
diesel exhaust, barbecue smoke, urban air, coal tar, crude oils, used
lubricating oils, various edible oils and fats, fruits, vegetables and
cereals and natural water, lake sediments and sewage sludge.(1,2) "
Benzopyrene is merely one of a number of carcinogenic PAHs.
> But smoking is the highest risk factor by a VERY large margin
³Very large margin has not been quantified and you know that!
Even if it is 90%, if we take the three numbers I have put forward, chronic
pulmonary diseases = 114,000, lung cancers = 159,000, pneumonia= 95,000
one gets over 300,000. If only 10% of this total is air pollution
related we get 30,000. You have to have a sense of proportion in
this situation. 30,000 is not an outrageous number unless you
are trying to sell automobiles!
> This article of course does not implicate SO2 or NOx as the cause but
> particulates which are typically produced by diesel engines and
> coal burning. Since diesel engines are used in a very small percentage
> of US motor cars this is a poor basis for your conclusions.
>
Note again, I said air pollution. But I will go further. As you well know
NO2 photolysis is is responsible for urban ozone generation. Ozone is
destructive to biologicals and also reactions with organics giving,
eventually peroxides which in turn reaction with NO to regenerate NO2 (via
peroxynitrates). These interim derivatives are highly irritating
(many a time tears ran down my face driving in LA smog). Now you are
telling me not of this is dangerous to living systems!
Next, nitric acid directly nitrates a number of things, which is why
one`s skin turns yellow when reacts with the stuff. Sulfuric acid
has never had a kindly image. Now you claim that all this is for naught!
Excess nitrates in drinking water presents a problem as you will know.
At stomach pHs it is nitric acid.
What to other people besides yourself claim?
If you Google ³cancer acid rain² you will get 90,000 hits.
The US government, now controlled by the most anti-environmental
administration in American history say things like-----
www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd95/acidrain.html
"Health and Environmental Effects: Before falling to Earth, SO 2and NOx
gases and related particulate matter (sulfates and nitrates) contribute to
poor visibility and impact public health. Major human health concerns
associated with their exposure include effects on breathing and the
respiratory system, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. In
the environment, acid rain raises the acid levels of lakes and streams
(making the water unsuitable for some fish and other wildlife) and damages
trees at high elevations. It also speeds up the decay of buildings, statues,
and sculptures, including those that are part of our national heritage."
We simply do not know at this time how important the environmental effects
are. You perhaps are too young to remember, but in my living memory was
the claim that smoking did not cause lung cancer. This disinformation
was spread by those who smoke and the industry.
The question to ask is whether there exists a vested interest today
in rejecting the role of air pollution in causing human diseases?
Of course there is, the automobile and fuel industry and the user
community play the same role as the tobacco industry smokers did years
ago.
Earl
Mar 2nd 2004, 3:24 am
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
Tim Challenger muttered....
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:34:38 -0600, Olivers wrote:
>
>> A. The number of vehicles per 100,000 people is substantially higher
>> in the US. Using that modifier, driving in the US may actually be
>> safer than in german.
>
> What makes you think that ?
> These figures are a bit old at 1997 but the first ones I found.
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm
>
> Germay 0.511
> USA 0.481 per capita.
>
That's an interesting number. I wonder if it applies to passenger cars or
all vehicles. Given the propensity for USAians to travel and commute by
car rather than by train or bus, I suspect that "passenger miles", the
figure the airlines use, may vary greatly between the two
countries/cultures, with the US "ahead" in that category. Of course, I
would imagine that in both countries, "urban" streets are the most likely
accident venue, not highways or autobahns. In my own case, my family of
two, non-commuting, office at home, but regular business travel, puts 25-
30,000 miles a year on two vehicles (SUVs, big and hoggish).
I seem to recall that an amazingly high percentage of US traffic deaths
involve alcohol use by drivers. I can't help but think alcohol is less
often involved in Germany.
TMO
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:34:38 -0600, Olivers wrote:
>
>> A. The number of vehicles per 100,000 people is substantially higher
>> in the US. Using that modifier, driving in the US may actually be
>> safer than in german.
>
> What makes you think that ?
> These figures are a bit old at 1997 but the first ones I found.
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm
>
> Germay 0.511
> USA 0.481 per capita.
>
That's an interesting number. I wonder if it applies to passenger cars or
all vehicles. Given the propensity for USAians to travel and commute by
car rather than by train or bus, I suspect that "passenger miles", the
figure the airlines use, may vary greatly between the two
countries/cultures, with the US "ahead" in that category. Of course, I
would imagine that in both countries, "urban" streets are the most likely
accident venue, not highways or autobahns. In my own case, my family of
two, non-commuting, office at home, but regular business travel, puts 25-
30,000 miles a year on two vehicles (SUVs, big and hoggish).
I seem to recall that an amazingly high percentage of US traffic deaths
involve alcohol use by drivers. I can't help but think alcohol is less
often involved in Germany.
TMO
Mar 2nd 2004, 4:18 am
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force GermanstoRethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6A694F.2871B%[email protected]...
> On 2/03/04 12:20, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC6A26FB.286DA%[email protected]...
> !
> >
> > Pneumonia is caused by an infectious agent not Nox
> Which is why old people are susceptible? Not good enough!
> Air pollution will weaken a person's resistance, making
> them susceptible to a number of diseases.
As will extreme cold,heat and any number of other factors
> > and the studies into lung cancer have concluded that cigarette smoke
> > accounts for 90% of cases and that the second highest risk factor
> > us exposure to Radon gas
> Now you are saying that air pollution has NO effect on lung cancer!
No I'm saying that studies indicate its effects are minor in comparison
with smoking and exposure to Radon
> More recent studies always revise what was "known" in the past.
Sure, feel free to find a study that says NOx pollution is the major
cause of lung cancer
> Take the following declaration
> "Benzo(a)pyrene is widely distributed in the environment as a by-product
of
> the incomplete combustion and thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of fossil
> fuels and organic matter. It is present in tobacco smoke, automobile and
> diesel exhaust, barbecue smoke, urban air, coal tar, crude oils, used
> lubricating oils, various edible oils and fats, fruits, vegetables and
> cereals and natural water, lake sediments and sewage sludge.(1,2) "
> Benzopyrene is merely one of a number of carcinogenic PAHs.
> > But smoking is the highest risk factor by a VERY large margin
> ³Very large margin has not been quantified and you know that!
Yes it has,read the studies. Consider the folowing page from
the American Lung Association.
http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html#what
It claims 87% of cases are associated with tobacco and
12% with exposure to Radon.
> Even if it is 90%, if we take the three numbers I have put forward,
chronic
> pulmonary diseases = 114,000, lung cancers = 159,000, pneumonia= 95,000
> one gets over 300,000. If only 10% of this total is air pollution
> related we get 30,000. You have to have a sense of proportion in
> this situation. 30,000 is not an outrageous number unless you
> are trying to sell automobiles!
You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
it could as easily be 1% , 5% or 0.1 %. I have already examined the
lung cancer figures and they seem closer to 1% than 10%
With regard to pulmonary disease the US Depth of Health and
Human Services says
<Quote>
In the U.S., the most important risk factor for
COPD by far is cigarette smoking. Pipe, cigar,
other types of tobacco smoking, and passive
exposure to cigarette smoke are also risk
factors. Other documented causes of COPD
include occupational dusts and chemicals.
Outdoor air pollution adds to the total burden
of inhaled particles in the lungs, but its role in
causing COPD is uncertain. The most important
measure for preventing COPD - and for
progression - is avoidance of smoking.
</Quote>
> > This article of course does not implicate SO2 or NOx as the cause but
> > particulates which are typically produced by diesel engines and
> > coal burning. Since diesel engines are used in a very small percentage
> > of US motor cars this is a poor basis for your conclusions.
> >
> Note again, I said air pollution. But I will go further. As you well
know
> NO2 photolysis is is responsible for urban ozone generation.
NOx photolysis is certainly the main mechanism for urban ozone generation
but we have to ascertain the manin mechanisms for NOx generation.
Motor vehicles are NOT the the only source.
The CDC published 3 actions needed to reduce NOx emissions
1) Reduce motor vehicle emissions
2) Limit emissions from commercial producers and other
consumer products such as heaters in the home
3) Limit emissions from Power Plants and refineries
Only the first of these options has been aggressively
pursued with the vast majority of private motor vehicles
now being fitted with catalytic converters which radically
reduce NOx emissions
> Ozone is
> destructive to biologicals and also reactions with organics giving,
> eventually peroxides which in turn reaction with NO to regenerate NO2 (via
> peroxynitrates). These interim derivatives are highly irritating
> (many a time tears ran down my face driving in LA smog). Now you are
> telling me not of this is dangerous to living systems!
Nope, please dont put words in my mouth !
> Next, nitric acid directly nitrates a number of things, which is why
> one`s skin turns yellow when reacts with the stuff. Sulfuric acid
> has never had a kindly image. Now you claim that all this is for naught!
> Excess nitrates in drinking water presents a problem as you will know.
> At stomach pHs it is nitric acid.
Excess nitrates in drinking water are the result of applying
fertilisers to fields, they have ZERO to do with motor vehicle
emissions.Lets try and be real here.
> What to other people besides yourself claim?
> If you Google ³cancer acid rain² you will get 90,000 hits.
> The US government, now controlled by the most anti-environmental
> administration in American history say things like-----
> www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd95/acidrain.html
> "Health and Environmental Effects: Before falling to Earth, SO 2and NOx
> gases and related particulate matter (sulfates and nitrates) contribute to
> poor visibility and impact public health. Major human health concerns
> associated with their exposure include effects on breathing and the
> respiratory system, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death.
In
> the environment, acid rain raises the acid levels of lakes and streams
> (making the water unsuitable for some fish and other wildlife) and damages
> trees at high elevations. It also speeds up the decay of buildings,
statues,
> and sculptures, including those that are part of our national heritage."
> We simply do not know at this time how important the environmental effects
> are. You perhaps are too young to remember, but in my living memory was
> the claim that smoking did not cause lung cancer. This disinformation
> was spread by those who smoke and the industry.
I am well aware of of that but are we to inder that you believe this
was all a Konspiracy to hide the real cause of most lung disease ?
> The question to ask is whether there exists a vested interest today
> in rejecting the role of air pollution in causing human diseases?
Strawman , I have made no such rejection, I am suggesting
that examining the actual major causes of air pollution
is rather more fruitful than simply blaming it on the car.
A recent survey in Manhattan identified the sources
of NOx as follows.
Non Road Diesel (generators etc) 27%
Gasoline powered cars and motorcycles 13%
Diesel engined trucks and buses 12%
Residential fuel usage10%
Heavy Oil fuelled Electrical generation 6%
Industrial Fuel usage 4%
Get out of town to Albany and the mix becomes
Industrial Processes 48%
Diesel engined trucks and buses 12%
Gasoline powered cars and motorcycles 8%
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation commission
published a study in 1996 that produced the following results for
Ozone production in the Galveston area
Biogenic production 67%, Industrial 18%, non road mobile7%
Road vehicles 8%
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/aqp/ei/rsumhg.htm
If you disregard biogenic production all forms of
road production are still only 25% of the total
I am old enough to remember REAL smog as it
existed in London and British Industrial cities
in the 50's.Yellow choking stuff that you couldnt see 25 yards
through that killed ten of thousands every winter.
That wasnt caused by motor cars but by burning coal.
We still burn coal but now we do it in power stations with
stacks tall enough to ensure the acid rain lands in Norway
> Of course there is, the automobile and fuel industry and the user
> community play the same role as the tobacco industry smokers did years
> ago.
So you discount the number one producer of acid rain, old
clapped out power plants and industrial furnaces without
scrubbers. If you want a vested interest read a little on the
environmental damage caused by such emissions.
Its politically fashionable to blame all environmental problems
on the private automobile, its less than accurate however.
Keith
news:BC6A694F.2871B%[email protected]...
> On 2/03/04 12:20, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC6A26FB.286DA%[email protected]...
> !
> >
> > Pneumonia is caused by an infectious agent not Nox
> Which is why old people are susceptible? Not good enough!
> Air pollution will weaken a person's resistance, making
> them susceptible to a number of diseases.
As will extreme cold,heat and any number of other factors
> > and the studies into lung cancer have concluded that cigarette smoke
> > accounts for 90% of cases and that the second highest risk factor
> > us exposure to Radon gas
> Now you are saying that air pollution has NO effect on lung cancer!
No I'm saying that studies indicate its effects are minor in comparison
with smoking and exposure to Radon
> More recent studies always revise what was "known" in the past.
Sure, feel free to find a study that says NOx pollution is the major
cause of lung cancer
> Take the following declaration
> "Benzo(a)pyrene is widely distributed in the environment as a by-product
of
> the incomplete combustion and thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of fossil
> fuels and organic matter. It is present in tobacco smoke, automobile and
> diesel exhaust, barbecue smoke, urban air, coal tar, crude oils, used
> lubricating oils, various edible oils and fats, fruits, vegetables and
> cereals and natural water, lake sediments and sewage sludge.(1,2) "
> Benzopyrene is merely one of a number of carcinogenic PAHs.
> > But smoking is the highest risk factor by a VERY large margin
> ³Very large margin has not been quantified and you know that!
Yes it has,read the studies. Consider the folowing page from
the American Lung Association.
http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html#what
It claims 87% of cases are associated with tobacco and
12% with exposure to Radon.
> Even if it is 90%, if we take the three numbers I have put forward,
chronic
> pulmonary diseases = 114,000, lung cancers = 159,000, pneumonia= 95,000
> one gets over 300,000. If only 10% of this total is air pollution
> related we get 30,000. You have to have a sense of proportion in
> this situation. 30,000 is not an outrageous number unless you
> are trying to sell automobiles!
You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
it could as easily be 1% , 5% or 0.1 %. I have already examined the
lung cancer figures and they seem closer to 1% than 10%
With regard to pulmonary disease the US Depth of Health and
Human Services says
<Quote>
In the U.S., the most important risk factor for
COPD by far is cigarette smoking. Pipe, cigar,
other types of tobacco smoking, and passive
exposure to cigarette smoke are also risk
factors. Other documented causes of COPD
include occupational dusts and chemicals.
Outdoor air pollution adds to the total burden
of inhaled particles in the lungs, but its role in
causing COPD is uncertain. The most important
measure for preventing COPD - and for
progression - is avoidance of smoking.
</Quote>
> > This article of course does not implicate SO2 or NOx as the cause but
> > particulates which are typically produced by diesel engines and
> > coal burning. Since diesel engines are used in a very small percentage
> > of US motor cars this is a poor basis for your conclusions.
> >
> Note again, I said air pollution. But I will go further. As you well
know
> NO2 photolysis is is responsible for urban ozone generation.
NOx photolysis is certainly the main mechanism for urban ozone generation
but we have to ascertain the manin mechanisms for NOx generation.
Motor vehicles are NOT the the only source.
The CDC published 3 actions needed to reduce NOx emissions
1) Reduce motor vehicle emissions
2) Limit emissions from commercial producers and other
consumer products such as heaters in the home
3) Limit emissions from Power Plants and refineries
Only the first of these options has been aggressively
pursued with the vast majority of private motor vehicles
now being fitted with catalytic converters which radically
reduce NOx emissions
> Ozone is
> destructive to biologicals and also reactions with organics giving,
> eventually peroxides which in turn reaction with NO to regenerate NO2 (via
> peroxynitrates). These interim derivatives are highly irritating
> (many a time tears ran down my face driving in LA smog). Now you are
> telling me not of this is dangerous to living systems!
Nope, please dont put words in my mouth !
> Next, nitric acid directly nitrates a number of things, which is why
> one`s skin turns yellow when reacts with the stuff. Sulfuric acid
> has never had a kindly image. Now you claim that all this is for naught!
> Excess nitrates in drinking water presents a problem as you will know.
> At stomach pHs it is nitric acid.
Excess nitrates in drinking water are the result of applying
fertilisers to fields, they have ZERO to do with motor vehicle
emissions.Lets try and be real here.
> What to other people besides yourself claim?
> If you Google ³cancer acid rain² you will get 90,000 hits.
> The US government, now controlled by the most anti-environmental
> administration in American history say things like-----
> www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd95/acidrain.html
> "Health and Environmental Effects: Before falling to Earth, SO 2and NOx
> gases and related particulate matter (sulfates and nitrates) contribute to
> poor visibility and impact public health. Major human health concerns
> associated with their exposure include effects on breathing and the
> respiratory system, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death.
In
> the environment, acid rain raises the acid levels of lakes and streams
> (making the water unsuitable for some fish and other wildlife) and damages
> trees at high elevations. It also speeds up the decay of buildings,
statues,
> and sculptures, including those that are part of our national heritage."
> We simply do not know at this time how important the environmental effects
> are. You perhaps are too young to remember, but in my living memory was
> the claim that smoking did not cause lung cancer. This disinformation
> was spread by those who smoke and the industry.
I am well aware of of that but are we to inder that you believe this
was all a Konspiracy to hide the real cause of most lung disease ?
> The question to ask is whether there exists a vested interest today
> in rejecting the role of air pollution in causing human diseases?
Strawman , I have made no such rejection, I am suggesting
that examining the actual major causes of air pollution
is rather more fruitful than simply blaming it on the car.
A recent survey in Manhattan identified the sources
of NOx as follows.
Non Road Diesel (generators etc) 27%
Gasoline powered cars and motorcycles 13%
Diesel engined trucks and buses 12%
Residential fuel usage10%
Heavy Oil fuelled Electrical generation 6%
Industrial Fuel usage 4%
Get out of town to Albany and the mix becomes
Industrial Processes 48%
Diesel engined trucks and buses 12%
Gasoline powered cars and motorcycles 8%
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation commission
published a study in 1996 that produced the following results for
Ozone production in the Galveston area
Biogenic production 67%, Industrial 18%, non road mobile7%
Road vehicles 8%
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/aqp/ei/rsumhg.htm
If you disregard biogenic production all forms of
road production are still only 25% of the total
I am old enough to remember REAL smog as it
existed in London and British Industrial cities
in the 50's.Yellow choking stuff that you couldnt see 25 yards
through that killed ten of thousands every winter.
That wasnt caused by motor cars but by burning coal.
We still burn coal but now we do it in power stations with
stacks tall enough to ensure the acid rain lands in Norway
> Of course there is, the automobile and fuel industry and the user
> community play the same role as the tobacco industry smokers did years
> ago.
So you discount the number one producer of acid rain, old
clapped out power plants and industrial furnaces without
scrubbers. If you want a vested interest read a little on the
environmental damage caused by such emissions.
Its politically fashionable to blame all environmental problems
on the private automobile, its less than accurate however.
Keith
