Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
Mar 2nd 2004, 5:09 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force
On 2/03/04 18:18, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6A694F.2871B%[email protected]...
> 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.
I suggest you go back to that site and do a search of
their own information on "air pollution"!
For instance
"The current U.S. federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150
micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50
µg/m3 averaged over a one-year period. The study found that men who were
exposed to PM10 over 100 µg/m3 for 43 days or more per year had a 28% higher
risk of dying from any type of non-malignant respiratory disease."
>
>> 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
>
>
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6A694F.2871B%[email protected]...
> 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.
I suggest you go back to that site and do a search of
their own information on "air pollution"!
For instance
"The current U.S. federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150
micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50
µg/m3 averaged over a one-year period. The study found that men who were
exposed to PM10 over 100 µg/m3 for 43 days or more per year had a 28% higher
risk of dying from any type of non-malignant respiratory disease."
>
>> 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
>
>
Mar 2nd 2004, 5:48 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force
On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl Evleth"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/03/04 18:18, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html#what
>>
>> It claims 87% of cases are associated with tobacco and
>> 12% with exposure to Radon.
>
I suggest you go back to that site and do a search of
their own information on "air pollution"!
For instance
"The current U.S. federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150
micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50
µg/m3 averaged over a one-year period. The study found that men who were
exposed to PM10 over 100 µg/m3 for 43 days or more per year had a 28%
higher risk of dying from any type of non-malignant respiratory disease."
>> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
>> 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.
This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
are static, virtually unchanging.
Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
decade since.
>> 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
Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No significant
drop has occurred nationally.
>> 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.
That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
west of the USA is NOx generated.
>> 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 is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
sense.
>> That wasnt caused by motor cars but by burning coal.
Nor in LA basin, it was the burning of gasoline!
I was raised in LA at the time.
>> So you discount the number one producer of acid rain, old
>> clapped out power plants and industrial furnaces without
>> scrubbers.
No, but in France we use mainly nuclear power so our problems
are largely vehicular in origin. We are more advance than
in England in that sense, having given up on coal powered
plants!
Earl
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/03/04 18:18, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html#what
>>
>> It claims 87% of cases are associated with tobacco and
>> 12% with exposure to Radon.
>
I suggest you go back to that site and do a search of
their own information on "air pollution"!
For instance
"The current U.S. federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150
micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50
µg/m3 averaged over a one-year period. The study found that men who were
exposed to PM10 over 100 µg/m3 for 43 days or more per year had a 28%
higher risk of dying from any type of non-malignant respiratory disease."
>> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
>> 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.
This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
are static, virtually unchanging.
Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
decade since.
>> 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
Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No significant
drop has occurred nationally.
>> 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.
That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
west of the USA is NOx generated.
>> 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 is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
sense.
>> That wasnt caused by motor cars but by burning coal.
Nor in LA basin, it was the burning of gasoline!
I was raised in LA at the time.
>> So you discount the number one producer of acid rain, old
>> clapped out power plants and industrial furnaces without
>> scrubbers.
No, but in France we use mainly nuclear power so our problems
are largely vehicular in origin. We are more advance than
in England in that sense, having given up on coal powered
plants!
Earl
Mar 2nd 2004, 7:56 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths ForceGermanstoRethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6A95A1.2875B%[email protected]...
> On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl
Evleth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2/03/04 18:18, in article [email protected], "Keith
> > Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html#what
> >>
> >> It claims 87% of cases are associated with tobacco and
> >> 12% with exposure to Radon.
> >
> I suggest you go back to that site and do a search of
> their own information on "air pollution"!
> For instance
> "The current U.S. federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150
> micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50
> µg/m3 averaged over a one-year period. The study found that men who were
> exposed to PM10 over 100 µg/m3 for 43 days or more per year had a 28%
> higher risk of dying from any type of non-malignant respiratory disease."
You seem unable to read beyond that paragraph I note . I suggest you
investigate how much of that particulate matter is emitted by
gasoline powered motor vehicles.
Hint: according to the EPA less than 24% of PM-10 particulates were emitted
by motor vehicles and the majority of that came from commercial vehicles
with diesel engines.
> >> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
> The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
I never suggested otherwise, what I have suggested is that ascribing the
bad results associated with breathing PM-10 particulates to privately
owned gasoline engined motor vehicles is an error.
There was an excellent study of particulate emissions in Europe carried
out some years ago valled :
THE POTENTIAL AND COSTS OF THE CONTROL OF
PARTICULATE MATTER IN EUROPE
by
MARKUS AMANN, JANUSZ COFALA, ZBIGNIEW KLIMONT
and ANKE LÃœKEWILLE of the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria;
This includes the follwing estimates of the source of such emissions
in kilotons per year
Power Plants 649
Industrial Furnaces 511
Industrial Processes 761
Domestic 1431
Heavy Trucks 119
Light trucks and cars 279
Off Road vehicles 52
Shipping 11
Non Road Transportation (trains etc) 286
Material Handling 162
Agriculture 63
Total 4328
So in this study all light trucks, buses and cars
accounted for less than 7% of European particluate
emissions
> >> 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.
> This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
> are static, virtually unchanging.
A silly statement. D you truly believe that NOx emissions
in 1776 were the same as today ?
> Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
> represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
> other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
> NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
> decade since.
Source please with particular emphasis on which portion of that
refers to gasoline powered motor cars.
The last figures I saw cited a 56% REDUCTION since 1985
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2004/pd021604c.html
> >> 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
> Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No significant
> drop has occurred nationally.
cite please, I have already given a counter
> >> 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.
> That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
> west of the USA is NOx generated.
Cite please, the last report I read on the subject referred
to the primary sources in Oregon being failed septic
tanks, livestock and agricultural runoff.
> >> 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 is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
> sense.
Take a look at a dictionary, here is what Websters say
Smog: fog made heavier and darker by smoke and chemical fumes;
also : a photochemical haze caused by the action of solar ultraviolet
radiation on atmosphere polluted with hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen from automobile exhaust
> >> That wasnt caused by motor cars but by burning coal.
> Nor in LA basin, it was the burning of gasoline!
> I was raised in LA at the time.
The the recent UCLA study should interest you
<Quote>
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has shown
that there has been a declining trend in the number of days that
Los Angeles (the South Coast Air Basin) has passed the federal standard.
In 1976, the South Coast Air Basin basin faced 102 Stage I alerts
and 7 Stage II alerts. This number increased during the late 70's
and has declined ever since.
In 1999, the South Coast Air Basin experienced 12 Stage I alerts,
and 0 Stage II alerts. Keeping regulations that are in place, and
setting even more stringent ones will prove helpful in solving the
smog problem as it has in the past. Particularly, regulation on the
emission of trucks and trailers will surely benefit the cause.
Trucks and trailers are singly the "dirtiest" machines out there.
</Quote>
> >> So you discount the number one producer of acid rain, old
> >> clapped out power plants and industrial furnaces without
> >> scrubbers.
> No, but in France we use mainly nuclear power so our problems
> are largely vehicular in origin. We are more advance than
> in England in that sense, having given up on coal powered
> plants!
Indeed but France still burns large amounts of fossil fuels for
other purposes and vehicular emissions from private are
NOT the largest cause.
A survey carried out by Citepa ( CentreInterprofessionnel
Technique d'Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique)
showed the following
Diesel engined Heavy Vehicles 17%
Agricultural Tractors etc 15%
Non catalysed Petrol Vehicles 12%
Non catalysed Diesel cars 5%
etc
Private cars with catalytic converters were
in tenth place with only 3.1%
I have made something of a study of risk analysis and
indeed am part of a team that writes software to aid
organisations making intelligent informed assessments
of risks and benefits. Unfortunately an informed approach
is all too often dumped in favour of politically motivated
posturing and ignorance.
If you want to reduce NOx emissions get your gas fired
central heating serviced, it almost certainly emits more
NOx than your car.
Keith
news:BC6A95A1.2875B%[email protected]...
> On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl
Evleth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2/03/04 18:18, in article [email protected], "Keith
> > Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungcanc.html#what
> >>
> >> It claims 87% of cases are associated with tobacco and
> >> 12% with exposure to Radon.
> >
> I suggest you go back to that site and do a search of
> their own information on "air pollution"!
> For instance
> "The current U.S. federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150
> micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50
> µg/m3 averaged over a one-year period. The study found that men who were
> exposed to PM10 over 100 µg/m3 for 43 days or more per year had a 28%
> higher risk of dying from any type of non-malignant respiratory disease."
You seem unable to read beyond that paragraph I note . I suggest you
investigate how much of that particulate matter is emitted by
gasoline powered motor vehicles.
Hint: according to the EPA less than 24% of PM-10 particulates were emitted
by motor vehicles and the majority of that came from commercial vehicles
with diesel engines.
> >> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
> The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
I never suggested otherwise, what I have suggested is that ascribing the
bad results associated with breathing PM-10 particulates to privately
owned gasoline engined motor vehicles is an error.
There was an excellent study of particulate emissions in Europe carried
out some years ago valled :
THE POTENTIAL AND COSTS OF THE CONTROL OF
PARTICULATE MATTER IN EUROPE
by
MARKUS AMANN, JANUSZ COFALA, ZBIGNIEW KLIMONT
and ANKE LÃœKEWILLE of the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria;
This includes the follwing estimates of the source of such emissions
in kilotons per year
Power Plants 649
Industrial Furnaces 511
Industrial Processes 761
Domestic 1431
Heavy Trucks 119
Light trucks and cars 279
Off Road vehicles 52
Shipping 11
Non Road Transportation (trains etc) 286
Material Handling 162
Agriculture 63
Total 4328
So in this study all light trucks, buses and cars
accounted for less than 7% of European particluate
emissions
> >> 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.
> This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
> are static, virtually unchanging.
A silly statement. D you truly believe that NOx emissions
in 1776 were the same as today ?
> Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
> represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
> other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
> NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
> decade since.
Source please with particular emphasis on which portion of that
refers to gasoline powered motor cars.
The last figures I saw cited a 56% REDUCTION since 1985
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2004/pd021604c.html
> >> 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
> Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No significant
> drop has occurred nationally.
cite please, I have already given a counter
> >> 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.
> That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
> west of the USA is NOx generated.
Cite please, the last report I read on the subject referred
to the primary sources in Oregon being failed septic
tanks, livestock and agricultural runoff.
> >> 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 is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
> sense.
Take a look at a dictionary, here is what Websters say
Smog: fog made heavier and darker by smoke and chemical fumes;
also : a photochemical haze caused by the action of solar ultraviolet
radiation on atmosphere polluted with hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen from automobile exhaust
> >> That wasnt caused by motor cars but by burning coal.
> Nor in LA basin, it was the burning of gasoline!
> I was raised in LA at the time.
The the recent UCLA study should interest you
<Quote>
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has shown
that there has been a declining trend in the number of days that
Los Angeles (the South Coast Air Basin) has passed the federal standard.
In 1976, the South Coast Air Basin basin faced 102 Stage I alerts
and 7 Stage II alerts. This number increased during the late 70's
and has declined ever since.
In 1999, the South Coast Air Basin experienced 12 Stage I alerts,
and 0 Stage II alerts. Keeping regulations that are in place, and
setting even more stringent ones will prove helpful in solving the
smog problem as it has in the past. Particularly, regulation on the
emission of trucks and trailers will surely benefit the cause.
Trucks and trailers are singly the "dirtiest" machines out there.
</Quote>
> >> So you discount the number one producer of acid rain, old
> >> clapped out power plants and industrial furnaces without
> >> scrubbers.
> No, but in France we use mainly nuclear power so our problems
> are largely vehicular in origin. We are more advance than
> in England in that sense, having given up on coal powered
> plants!
Indeed but France still burns large amounts of fossil fuels for
other purposes and vehicular emissions from private are
NOT the largest cause.
A survey carried out by Citepa ( CentreInterprofessionnel
Technique d'Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique)
showed the following
Diesel engined Heavy Vehicles 17%
Agricultural Tractors etc 15%
Non catalysed Petrol Vehicles 12%
Non catalysed Diesel cars 5%
etc
Private cars with catalytic converters were
in tenth place with only 3.1%
I have made something of a study of risk analysis and
indeed am part of a team that writes software to aid
organisations making intelligent informed assessments
of risks and benefits. Unfortunately an informed approach
is all too often dumped in favour of politically motivated
posturing and ignorance.
If you want to reduce NOx emissions get your gas fired
central heating serviced, it almost certainly emits more
NOx than your car.
Keith
Mar 2nd 2004, 6:49 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
> 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!
Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
Very common here in Germany.
Walter
> 130 km! I think it safe to say that SOME owners of large cars have a
> superiority complex and want others to recognize that!
Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
Very common here in Germany.
Walter
Mar 2nd 2004, 8:38 pm
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths ForceGermanstoRethinkPassion
On 2/03/04 21:56, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6A95A1.2875B%[email protected]...
>> On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl
> Evleth"
> You seem unable to read beyond that paragraph I note . I suggest you
> investigate how much of that particulate matter is emitted by
> gasoline powered motor vehicles.
I am not limiting my discussion to gasoline powered since a large portion
of the cars sold in France are diesel powered. I don`t know the figure
in the rest of Europe. Truck traffic is an important sources of pollution.
> Hint: according to the EPA less than 24% of PM-10 particulates were emitted
> by motor vehicles and the majority of that came from commercial vehicles
> with diesel engines.
Which is why I include this in my analysis. I thought that was a given
factor in this discussion?
>
>>>> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
>>
>> The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
>
> I never suggested otherwise, what I have suggested is that ascribing the
> bad results associated with breathing PM-10 particulates to privately
> owned gasoline engined motor vehicles is an error.
Again, I did not llmit my discussion of the production of air pollution
to gasoline powered vehicles. I used the term vehicles generally.
>>
>> This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
>> are static, virtually unchanging.
>>
>
> A silly statement. D you truly believe that NOx emissions
> in 1776 were the same as today ?
In the air pollution area, historically is used with
respect to the period of the industrial revolution. We know that
CO2 started to rise from the beginning of this period so man made
pollutants in general come from that period. Your reaching back
in time to 1776 is a curious diversion? Why that date in particular?
>> Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
>> represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
>> other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
>> NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
>> decade since.
> Source please with particular emphasis on which portion of that
> refers to gasoline powered motor cars.
The source I used happened to by an almanac, which gives rapid
access to such general information. Only the data for transportation
was given and I assume that means car, truck, bus or any vehicular
transport. Train diesel source would also be included, however.
> The last figures I saw cited a 56% REDUCTION since 1985
> http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2004/pd021604c.html
That is a news article, ironically entitled you look again!
A graph is given at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/nitrogen.html
The decrease is mild quasi-static, a 12% decrease in the 90s.
The decrease has been greater in SO2 but an analysis done years
ago showed that nearly all the acid rain components would have
to be eliminated to bring Eastern US rainwater pHs down to
near normal.
The pH of rain water is naturally around 5-6 region due to CO2.
If we return to Germany, the pH value for rain water there lies on
average between 4.0 and 4.6 pH, which corresponds to up to 40 times
natural acidity levels.
The EPA web site changes with time and may reflect the political coloration
of the administration at times, it is scheduled for a budget reduction
by Bush. Republications don`t like science in general!
Anyway, a few years back the EPA site said
"Most lakes and streams have a pH between 6 and 8. However, some lakes are
naturally acidic even without the effects of acid rain . Lakes
and streams become acidic (pH value goes down) when the water itself
and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to
neutralize it. In areas like the Northeastern United States where
soil buffering is poor, some lakes now have a pH value of less than 5.
One of the most acidic lakes reported is Little Echo Pond in
Franklin, New York. Little Echo Pond has a pH of 4.2. Lakes and streams in
The western United States are usually not acidic. Because of
differences in emissions and wind patterns, levels of acid deposition are
generally lower in the western United States than in the eastern
United States."
Originally, only SO2 was considered an acid rain problem, the idea that
NOx played an important role only entered the arena in the 90s. Then
the discussion advanced to both sulfate and nitrate deposition and their
effects on forests and aquatic life. The effect on human life has received
more and more attention. So we are still on the upward curve of the latter.
Since I am a chemist, I first took notice of the acid rain problem in the
early 1970s. I was a student at Caltech in the early 1950s and first
learned about urban ozone from one of my teachers, Hagenschmidt, who first
proposed the ozone as the main pollutant in the LA Basin around 1950.
At that time, blaming air pollution on vehicular pollution was not popular
and the initial blame was directed to the LA petroleum industry's release
of SO2. Before ozone was discovered, considerable expense occurred in
removing sulfur in the petroleum processing in that area. However Stauffer
made money on it since it was converted into industrial sulfuric acid.
After than back yard incinerators were blamed and foot dragging on the
vehicular solution continued.
Nationally foot dragging on the industrial SO2 removal has continued and I
think the results to date speak for themselves on both SO2 and NO2
decreases. Bush devised a new dodge on this a few months ago.
>> Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No significant
>> drop has occurred nationally.
>>
>
> cite please, I have already given a counter
See above, go to epa site and look.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
>> west of the USA is NOx generated.
> Cite please, the last report I read on the subject referred
> to the primary sources in Oregon being failed septic
> tanks, livestock and agricultural runoff.
See [PDF] Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the Intermountain West
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Donald H. Campbell -Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the
Intermountain West 151 The Intermountain region of the western United States
includes vast ... www.ceinfo.org/Archives/AcidRain/53_Campbell.pdf -
This gives a recent study in the west of both Nox and agricultural NH3
pollution. If you will notice, total nitrogen emissions-depositions are
not really changing, about two thirds of the nitrogen deposition is
due to NOx. I have not printed this article out but looked at it on the
screen. Seems like a complete study, however.
>>
>>
>> That is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
>> sense.
>>
>
> Take a look at a dictionary,
I grew up in the LA basin! Smog has undergone redefinition in
the major sense since it left southern England. The Parisian
area has no SO2 problem, here it is all NOx generated.
> The the recent UCLA study should interest you
The only thing I have followed is that generally the control
of organics released have reduced the smog level, the NO does not
get recycled back to NO2 and essentially play a continued catalytic
role in producing ozone. So ozone levels are way down, but
from what I have see so far, NOx levels are not strongly down.
This may be due to the older vehicles still in the area, however
and may eventually decrease. But I don`t see this in the broad
NOx statistics.
> Indeed but France still burns large amounts of fossil fuels for
> other purposes and vehicular emissions from private are
> NOT the largest cause.
Not a lot of sulfur containing fuels, however. The country
ran out of coal a while back. Vehicular fuels, including diesel,
have been desulfurized for a long time. The SO2 problem in
the US is due to burning western coal which runs a couple
of % in sulfur. It is getting rid of that where the foot
dragging has occurred.
> A survey carried out by Citepa ( CentreInterprofessionnel
> Technique d'Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique)
>
> showed the following
>
> Diesel engined Heavy Vehicles 17%
> Agricultural Tractors etc 15%
> Non catalysed Petrol Vehicles 12%
> Non catalysed Diesel cars 5%
> Private cars with catalytic converters were
> in tenth place with only 3.1%
That is OK, since I put diesels, truck traffic, etc into
the same basket with private cars. I have not found the
item on their web page. The importance of vehicular
transportation in air pollution is undereline by the
fact that in France the authorities do order traffic
changes when we get hit with an alert. Paris is not yet
as bad as Athens where the reduce car traffic.
I think it is clear that globally, societies have allowed
the automobile to occupy too large a place in economic activity,
neglect of public transportation, train use, especially in freight
transport. Air pollution is only one aspect of the problem.
Earl
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6A95A1.2875B%[email protected]...
>> On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl
> Evleth"
> You seem unable to read beyond that paragraph I note . I suggest you
> investigate how much of that particulate matter is emitted by
> gasoline powered motor vehicles.
I am not limiting my discussion to gasoline powered since a large portion
of the cars sold in France are diesel powered. I don`t know the figure
in the rest of Europe. Truck traffic is an important sources of pollution.
> Hint: according to the EPA less than 24% of PM-10 particulates were emitted
> by motor vehicles and the majority of that came from commercial vehicles
> with diesel engines.
Which is why I include this in my analysis. I thought that was a given
factor in this discussion?
>
>>>> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
>>
>> The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
>
> I never suggested otherwise, what I have suggested is that ascribing the
> bad results associated with breathing PM-10 particulates to privately
> owned gasoline engined motor vehicles is an error.
Again, I did not llmit my discussion of the production of air pollution
to gasoline powered vehicles. I used the term vehicles generally.
>>
>> This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
>> are static, virtually unchanging.
>>
>
> A silly statement. D you truly believe that NOx emissions
> in 1776 were the same as today ?
In the air pollution area, historically is used with
respect to the period of the industrial revolution. We know that
CO2 started to rise from the beginning of this period so man made
pollutants in general come from that period. Your reaching back
in time to 1776 is a curious diversion? Why that date in particular?
>> Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
>> represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
>> other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
>> NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
>> decade since.
> Source please with particular emphasis on which portion of that
> refers to gasoline powered motor cars.
The source I used happened to by an almanac, which gives rapid
access to such general information. Only the data for transportation
was given and I assume that means car, truck, bus or any vehicular
transport. Train diesel source would also be included, however.
> The last figures I saw cited a 56% REDUCTION since 1985
> http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2004/pd021604c.html
That is a news article, ironically entitled you look again!
A graph is given at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/nitrogen.html
The decrease is mild quasi-static, a 12% decrease in the 90s.
The decrease has been greater in SO2 but an analysis done years
ago showed that nearly all the acid rain components would have
to be eliminated to bring Eastern US rainwater pHs down to
near normal.
The pH of rain water is naturally around 5-6 region due to CO2.
If we return to Germany, the pH value for rain water there lies on
average between 4.0 and 4.6 pH, which corresponds to up to 40 times
natural acidity levels.
The EPA web site changes with time and may reflect the political coloration
of the administration at times, it is scheduled for a budget reduction
by Bush. Republications don`t like science in general!
Anyway, a few years back the EPA site said
"Most lakes and streams have a pH between 6 and 8. However, some lakes are
naturally acidic even without the effects of acid rain . Lakes
and streams become acidic (pH value goes down) when the water itself
and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to
neutralize it. In areas like the Northeastern United States where
soil buffering is poor, some lakes now have a pH value of less than 5.
One of the most acidic lakes reported is Little Echo Pond in
Franklin, New York. Little Echo Pond has a pH of 4.2. Lakes and streams in
The western United States are usually not acidic. Because of
differences in emissions and wind patterns, levels of acid deposition are
generally lower in the western United States than in the eastern
United States."
Originally, only SO2 was considered an acid rain problem, the idea that
NOx played an important role only entered the arena in the 90s. Then
the discussion advanced to both sulfate and nitrate deposition and their
effects on forests and aquatic life. The effect on human life has received
more and more attention. So we are still on the upward curve of the latter.
Since I am a chemist, I first took notice of the acid rain problem in the
early 1970s. I was a student at Caltech in the early 1950s and first
learned about urban ozone from one of my teachers, Hagenschmidt, who first
proposed the ozone as the main pollutant in the LA Basin around 1950.
At that time, blaming air pollution on vehicular pollution was not popular
and the initial blame was directed to the LA petroleum industry's release
of SO2. Before ozone was discovered, considerable expense occurred in
removing sulfur in the petroleum processing in that area. However Stauffer
made money on it since it was converted into industrial sulfuric acid.
After than back yard incinerators were blamed and foot dragging on the
vehicular solution continued.
Nationally foot dragging on the industrial SO2 removal has continued and I
think the results to date speak for themselves on both SO2 and NO2
decreases. Bush devised a new dodge on this a few months ago.
>> Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No significant
>> drop has occurred nationally.
>>
>
> cite please, I have already given a counter
See above, go to epa site and look.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
>> west of the USA is NOx generated.
> Cite please, the last report I read on the subject referred
> to the primary sources in Oregon being failed septic
> tanks, livestock and agricultural runoff.
See [PDF] Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the Intermountain West
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Donald H. Campbell -Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the
Intermountain West 151 The Intermountain region of the western United States
includes vast ... www.ceinfo.org/Archives/AcidRain/53_Campbell.pdf -
This gives a recent study in the west of both Nox and agricultural NH3
pollution. If you will notice, total nitrogen emissions-depositions are
not really changing, about two thirds of the nitrogen deposition is
due to NOx. I have not printed this article out but looked at it on the
screen. Seems like a complete study, however.
>>
>>
>> That is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
>> sense.
>>
>
> Take a look at a dictionary,
I grew up in the LA basin! Smog has undergone redefinition in
the major sense since it left southern England. The Parisian
area has no SO2 problem, here it is all NOx generated.
> The the recent UCLA study should interest you
The only thing I have followed is that generally the control
of organics released have reduced the smog level, the NO does not
get recycled back to NO2 and essentially play a continued catalytic
role in producing ozone. So ozone levels are way down, but
from what I have see so far, NOx levels are not strongly down.
This may be due to the older vehicles still in the area, however
and may eventually decrease. But I don`t see this in the broad
NOx statistics.
> Indeed but France still burns large amounts of fossil fuels for
> other purposes and vehicular emissions from private are
> NOT the largest cause.
Not a lot of sulfur containing fuels, however. The country
ran out of coal a while back. Vehicular fuels, including diesel,
have been desulfurized for a long time. The SO2 problem in
the US is due to burning western coal which runs a couple
of % in sulfur. It is getting rid of that where the foot
dragging has occurred.
> A survey carried out by Citepa ( CentreInterprofessionnel
> Technique d'Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique)
>
> showed the following
>
> Diesel engined Heavy Vehicles 17%
> Agricultural Tractors etc 15%
> Non catalysed Petrol Vehicles 12%
> Non catalysed Diesel cars 5%
> Private cars with catalytic converters were
> in tenth place with only 3.1%
That is OK, since I put diesels, truck traffic, etc into
the same basket with private cars. I have not found the
item on their web page. The importance of vehicular
transportation in air pollution is undereline by the
fact that in France the authorities do order traffic
changes when we get hit with an alert. Paris is not yet
as bad as Athens where the reduce car traffic.
I think it is clear that globally, societies have allowed
the automobile to occupy too large a place in economic activity,
neglect of public transportation, train use, especially in freight
transport. Air pollution is only one aspect of the problem.
Earl
Mar 2nd 2004, 9:28 pm
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink Passion for Speed
Following up to walter
>Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
>see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
>Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
>Very common here in Germany.
Yes, Walter, I drive a BMW and many people in the driving
newsgroup here exhibit all the symptoms of jealously of
BMW/Mercedes etc drivers. (although to be honest BMW drivers do
tend to be fast drivers here and are disliked by the "middle lane
whatever, clenching the wheel with white knuckles, mouth open"
type of driver).
--
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
>Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
>see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
>Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
>Very common here in Germany.
Yes, Walter, I drive a BMW and many people in the driving
newsgroup here exhibit all the symptoms of jealously of
BMW/Mercedes etc drivers. (although to be honest BMW drivers do
tend to be fast drivers here and are disliked by the "middle lane
whatever, clenching the wheel with white knuckles, mouth open"
type of driver).
--
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 2nd 2004, 9:32 pm
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths ForceGermanstoRethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6B660B.287DC%[email protected]...
> On 2/03/04 21:56, in article [email protected],
"Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC6A95A1.2875B%[email protected]...
> >> On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl
> > Evleth"
> > You seem unable to read beyond that paragraph I note . I suggest you
> > investigate how much of that particulate matter is emitted by
> > gasoline powered motor vehicles.
> I am not limiting my discussion to gasoline powered since a large portion
> of the cars sold in France are diesel powered. I don`t know the figure
> in the rest of Europe. Truck traffic is an important sources of
pollution.
Which is precisely what I have been saying !
> > Hint: according to the EPA less than 24% of PM-10 particulates were
emitted
> > by motor vehicles and the majority of that came from commercial vehicles
> > with diesel engines.
> Which is why I include this in my analysis. I thought that was a given
> factor in this discussion?
Since this discussion started as a rant about how damaging
driving cars quickly down the autobahn was that is hardly
a given.
> >
> >>>> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
> >>
> >> The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
> >
> > I never suggested otherwise, what I have suggested is that ascribing the
> > bad results associated with breathing PM-10 particulates to privately
> > owned gasoline engined motor vehicles is an error.
> Again, I did not llmit my discussion of the production of air pollution
> to gasoline powered vehicles. I used the term vehicles generally.
Indeed but you did so to paint a picture of the private car
as the main pollutor.
> >>
> >> This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
> >> are static, virtually unchanging.
> >>
> >
> > A silly statement. D you truly believe that NOx emissions
> > in 1776 were the same as today ?
> In the air pollution area, historically is used with
> respect to the period of the industrial revolution. We know that
> CO2 started to rise from the beginning of this period so man made
> pollutants in general come from that period. Your reaching back
> in time to 1776 is a curious diversion? Why that date in particular?
An American has to ask that question ?
> >> Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
> >> represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
> >> other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
> >> NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
> >> decade since.
> > Source please with particular emphasis on which portion of that
> > refers to gasoline powered motor cars.
> The source I used happened to by an almanac, which gives rapid
> access to such general information. Only the data for transportation
> was given and I assume that means car, truck, bus or any vehicular
> transport. Train diesel source would also be included, however.
Lack of cite noted
> > The last figures I saw cited a 56% REDUCTION since 1985
> > http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2004/pd021604c.html
> That is a news article, ironically entitled you look again!
> A graph is given at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/nitrogen.html
> The decrease is mild quasi-static, a 12% decrease in the 90s.
> The decrease has been greater in SO2 but an analysis done years
> ago showed that nearly all the acid rain components would have
> to be eliminated to bring Eastern US rainwater pHs down to
> near normal.
Your source does not agree, it clearly states
<Quote>
Since 1983, monitored levels of NO2 have decreased 21 percent.
These downward trends in national NO2 levels are reflected in all
regions of the country. Nationally, average NO2 concentrations are
well below the NAAQS and are currently at the lowest levels recorded
in the past 20 years. All areas of the country that once violated the
NAAQS for NO2 now meet that standard.
</Quote>
> The pH of rain water is naturally around 5-6 region due to CO2.
> If we return to Germany, the pH value for rain water there lies on
> average between 4.0 and 4.6 pH, which corresponds to up to 40 times
> natural acidity levels.
> The EPA web site changes with time and may reflect the political
coloration
> of the administration at times, it is scheduled for a budget reduction
> by Bush. Republications don`t like science in general!
> Anyway, a few years back the EPA site said
> "Most lakes and streams have a pH between 6 and 8. However, some lakes are
> naturally acidic even without the effects of acid rain . Lakes
> and streams become acidic (pH value goes down) when the water itself
> and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to
> neutralize it. In areas like the Northeastern United States where
> soil buffering is poor, some lakes now have a pH value of less than 5.
> One of the most acidic lakes reported is Little Echo Pond in
> Franklin, New York. Little Echo Pond has a pH of 4.2. Lakes and streams
in
> The western United States are usually not acidic. Because of
> differences in emissions and wind patterns, levels of acid deposition are
> generally lower in the western United States than in the eastern
> United States."
> Originally, only SO2 was considered an acid rain problem, the idea that
> NOx played an important role only entered the arena in the 90s. Then
> the discussion advanced to both sulfate and nitrate deposition and their
> effects on forests and aquatic life. The effect on human life has received
> more and more attention. So we are still on the upward curve of the
latter.
> Since I am a chemist, I first took notice of the acid rain problem in the
> early 1970s. I was a student at Caltech in the early 1950s and first
> learned about urban ozone from one of my teachers, Hagenschmidt, who first
> proposed the ozone as the main pollutant in the LA Basin around 1950.
> At that time, blaming air pollution on vehicular pollution was not popular
> and the initial blame was directed to the LA petroleum industry's release
> of SO2. Before ozone was discovered, considerable expense occurred in
> removing sulfur in the petroleum processing in that area. However Stauffer
> made money on it since it was converted into industrial sulfuric acid.
> After than back yard incinerators were blamed and foot dragging on the
> vehicular solution continued.
Bullfeathers, catalytic converters have been required on vehicles
sold for private usage since around 1977 and have had a major
effect on emission levels in both the USA and Europe. The
USA has a particular problem in that they left a loophole in
the legislation with exemptions for commercial vehicles
that let pickups and SUV's avoid the requirements. This
is now in the process of being closed in California
as I recall.
> Nationally foot dragging on the industrial SO2 removal has continued and I
> think the results to date speak for themselves on both SO2 and NO2
> decreases. Bush devised a new dodge on this a few months ago.
This is all very nice and in line with my earlier statements that the
primary
causes of acid rain are industrial sources and power generation.
> >> Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No
significant
> >> drop has occurred nationally.
> >>
> >
> > cite please, I have already given a counter
> See above, go to epa site and look.
I have , it clearly states automotive emissions have reduced
drastically
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >> That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
> >> west of the USA is NOx generated.
> > Cite please, the last report I read on the subject referred
> > to the primary sources in Oregon being failed septic
> > tanks, livestock and agricultural runoff.
> See [PDF] Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the Intermountain West
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> Donald H. Campbell -Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the
> Intermountain West 151 The Intermountain region of the western United
States
> includes vast ... www.ceinfo.org/Archives/AcidRain/53_Campbell.pdf -
> This gives a recent study in the west of both Nox and agricultural NH3
> pollution. If you will notice, total nitrogen emissions-depositions are
> not really changing, about two thirds of the nitrogen deposition is
> due to NOx. I have not printed this article out but looked at it on the
> screen. Seems like a complete study, however.
Indeed and its conclusions are interesting
<Quote>
Chronic acidification of surface waters from
atmospheric deposition is NOT a widespread
problem in the Intermountain region. Episodic
acidification is a concern in some high-elevation
headwaters and in some ephemeral ponds. Recent
trends of decreasing sulfate in deposition suggest
that acidification from sulfur compounds is NOT
getting worse; however, it is unclear whether these
trends will persist in the future, and they may be
offset by increasing trends in deposition of
nitrogen compounds.
</Quote>
Note that this study is on acid rain not the
sources of nitrates in drinking water.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > Take a look at a dictionary,
> I grew up in the LA basin! Smog has undergone redefinition in
> the major sense since it left southern England. The Parisian
> area has no SO2 problem, here it is all NOx generated.
Evasion noted
Certainly Europe was very slow to make catalytic converters
mandatory but the effects are already clear. NOx emissions
in Paris began to fall in 1997 and declined by 10% between 2001
and 2002 alone.
http://www.airparif.asso.fr/english/.../evolution.htm
> > The the recent UCLA study should interest you
> The only thing I have followed is that generally the control
> of organics released have reduced the smog level, the NO does not
> get recycled back to NO2 and essentially play a continued catalytic
> role in producing ozone.
Why are you repeating an assertion that has been shown to be
incorrect ?
3 Way catalytic converters DO repeat DO radically reduce
NO and NO2 emissions
http://www.cleanairsys.com/materials...NG%20Sheet.pdf
> So ozone levels are way down, but
> from what I have see so far, NOx levels are not strongly down.
Once again the sources YOU cited state otherwise.
> This may be due to the older vehicles still in the area, however
> and may eventually decrease. But I don`t see this in the broad
> NOx statistics.
I do in the source YOU provided which clearly refers to a 20%
reduction
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/nitrogen.html
"Since 1983, monitored levels of NO2 have decreased 21 percent"
> > Indeed but France still burns large amounts of fossil fuels for
> > other purposes and vehicular emissions from private are
> > NOT the largest cause.
> Not a lot of sulfur containing fuels, however. The country
> ran out of coal a while back. Vehicular fuels, including diesel,
> have been desulfurized for a long time. The SO2 problem in
> the US is due to burning western coal which runs a couple
> of % in sulfur. It is getting rid of that where the foot
> dragging has occurred.
Halleluiah, look back at my first post where I said just that.
> > A survey carried out by Citepa ( CentreInterprofessionnel
> > Technique d'Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique)
> >
> > showed the following
> >
> > Diesel engined Heavy Vehicles 17%
> > Agricultural Tractors etc 15%
> > Non catalysed Petrol Vehicles 12%
> > Non catalysed Diesel cars 5%
> > Private cars with catalytic converters were
> > in tenth place with only 3.1%
> That is OK, since I put diesels, truck traffic, etc into
> the same basket with private cars.
Which would appear to be the prime cause of your
erroneous assertions with respect to private automobiles.
The statistics show that even a complete ban on
private automobiles would have a minor effect.
For a real reduction to occur the focus has to shift
to industrial sources and heavy trucks.
> I have not found the
> item on their web page. The importance of vehicular
> transportation in air pollution is undereline by the
> fact that in France the authorities do order traffic
> changes when we get hit with an alert. Paris is not yet
> as bad as Athens where the reduce car traffic.
Which is an easy out for the politicians as they
can be seen to be acting without taking hard
decisions that would affect industry.
> I think it is clear that globally, societies have allowed
> the automobile to occupy too large a place in economic activity,
> neglect of public transportation, train use, especially in freight
> transport. Air pollution is only one aspect of the problem.
Your fixation with the automobile as villain is noted
but the fact remains that with the advent of catalytic converters
it is a LONG way down the list of polluters and if you truly wish
to reduce atmospheric sulphur and NOx emissions a
focus on residential, industrial and heavy good vehicles
emissions would be far more effective if less politically
sexy.
Keith
news:BC6B660B.287DC%[email protected]...
> On 2/03/04 21:56, in article [email protected],
"Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC6A95A1.2875B%[email protected]...
> >> On 2/03/04 19:09, in article BC6A8C62.28752%[email protected], "Earl
> > Evleth"
> > You seem unable to read beyond that paragraph I note . I suggest you
> > investigate how much of that particulate matter is emitted by
> > gasoline powered motor vehicles.
> I am not limiting my discussion to gasoline powered since a large portion
> of the cars sold in France are diesel powered. I don`t know the figure
> in the rest of Europe. Truck traffic is an important sources of
pollution.
Which is precisely what I have been saying !
> > Hint: according to the EPA less than 24% of PM-10 particulates were
emitted
> > by motor vehicles and the majority of that came from commercial vehicles
> > with diesel engines.
> Which is why I include this in my analysis. I thought that was a given
> factor in this discussion?
Since this discussion started as a rant about how damaging
driving cars quickly down the autobahn was that is hardly
a given.
> >
> >>>> You have zero evidence that it is 10%, that's a fabricated number,
> >>
> >> The Lancet article's 20,000 is not fabricated.
> >
> > I never suggested otherwise, what I have suggested is that ascribing the
> > bad results associated with breathing PM-10 particulates to privately
> > owned gasoline engined motor vehicles is an error.
> Again, I did not llmit my discussion of the production of air pollution
> to gasoline powered vehicles. I used the term vehicles generally.
Indeed but you did so to paint a picture of the private car
as the main pollutor.
> >>
> >> This historical US evolution of Nox emissions
> >> are static, virtually unchanging.
> >>
> >
> > A silly statement. D you truly believe that NOx emissions
> > in 1776 were the same as today ?
> In the air pollution area, historically is used with
> respect to the period of the industrial revolution. We know that
> CO2 started to rise from the beginning of this period so man made
> pollutants in general come from that period. Your reaching back
> in time to 1776 is a curious diversion? Why that date in particular?
An American has to ask that question ?
> >> Of the 1999 total of 25,393,000 tons, transportation
> >> represented a little over half at 14,105,000, with
> >> other fuel combustion second at 10,026,000. The vehicular
> >> NOx emissions were 9,322,000 in 1970 and have risen each
> >> decade since.
> > Source please with particular emphasis on which portion of that
> > refers to gasoline powered motor cars.
> The source I used happened to by an almanac, which gives rapid
> access to such general information. Only the data for transportation
> was given and I assume that means car, truck, bus or any vehicular
> transport. Train diesel source would also be included, however.
Lack of cite noted
> > The last figures I saw cited a 56% REDUCTION since 1985
> > http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2004/pd021604c.html
> That is a news article, ironically entitled you look again!
> A graph is given at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/nitrogen.html
> The decrease is mild quasi-static, a 12% decrease in the 90s.
> The decrease has been greater in SO2 but an analysis done years
> ago showed that nearly all the acid rain components would have
> to be eliminated to bring Eastern US rainwater pHs down to
> near normal.
Your source does not agree, it clearly states
<Quote>
Since 1983, monitored levels of NO2 have decreased 21 percent.
These downward trends in national NO2 levels are reflected in all
regions of the country. Nationally, average NO2 concentrations are
well below the NAAQS and are currently at the lowest levels recorded
in the past 20 years. All areas of the country that once violated the
NAAQS for NO2 now meet that standard.
</Quote>
> The pH of rain water is naturally around 5-6 region due to CO2.
> If we return to Germany, the pH value for rain water there lies on
> average between 4.0 and 4.6 pH, which corresponds to up to 40 times
> natural acidity levels.
> The EPA web site changes with time and may reflect the political
coloration
> of the administration at times, it is scheduled for a budget reduction
> by Bush. Republications don`t like science in general!
> Anyway, a few years back the EPA site said
> "Most lakes and streams have a pH between 6 and 8. However, some lakes are
> naturally acidic even without the effects of acid rain . Lakes
> and streams become acidic (pH value goes down) when the water itself
> and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to
> neutralize it. In areas like the Northeastern United States where
> soil buffering is poor, some lakes now have a pH value of less than 5.
> One of the most acidic lakes reported is Little Echo Pond in
> Franklin, New York. Little Echo Pond has a pH of 4.2. Lakes and streams
in
> The western United States are usually not acidic. Because of
> differences in emissions and wind patterns, levels of acid deposition are
> generally lower in the western United States than in the eastern
> United States."
> Originally, only SO2 was considered an acid rain problem, the idea that
> NOx played an important role only entered the arena in the 90s. Then
> the discussion advanced to both sulfate and nitrate deposition and their
> effects on forests and aquatic life. The effect on human life has received
> more and more attention. So we are still on the upward curve of the
latter.
> Since I am a chemist, I first took notice of the acid rain problem in the
> early 1970s. I was a student at Caltech in the early 1950s and first
> learned about urban ozone from one of my teachers, Hagenschmidt, who first
> proposed the ozone as the main pollutant in the LA Basin around 1950.
> At that time, blaming air pollution on vehicular pollution was not popular
> and the initial blame was directed to the LA petroleum industry's release
> of SO2. Before ozone was discovered, considerable expense occurred in
> removing sulfur in the petroleum processing in that area. However Stauffer
> made money on it since it was converted into industrial sulfuric acid.
> After than back yard incinerators were blamed and foot dragging on the
> vehicular solution continued.
Bullfeathers, catalytic converters have been required on vehicles
sold for private usage since around 1977 and have had a major
effect on emission levels in both the USA and Europe. The
USA has a particular problem in that they left a loophole in
the legislation with exemptions for commercial vehicles
that let pickups and SUV's avoid the requirements. This
is now in the process of being closed in California
as I recall.
> Nationally foot dragging on the industrial SO2 removal has continued and I
> think the results to date speak for themselves on both SO2 and NO2
> decreases. Bush devised a new dodge on this a few months ago.
This is all very nice and in line with my earlier statements that the
primary
causes of acid rain are industrial sources and power generation.
> >> Apparently ineffective, as judge from the above figures. No
significant
> >> drop has occurred nationally.
> >>
> >
> > cite please, I have already given a counter
> See above, go to epa site and look.
I have , it clearly states automotive emissions have reduced
drastically
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >> That is true in Europe, but the nitrate deposition in the far
> >> west of the USA is NOx generated.
> > Cite please, the last report I read on the subject referred
> > to the primary sources in Oregon being failed septic
> > tanks, livestock and agricultural runoff.
> See [PDF] Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the Intermountain West
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> Donald H. Campbell -Atmospheric Deposition and Its Effects in the
> Intermountain West 151 The Intermountain region of the western United
States
> includes vast ... www.ceinfo.org/Archives/AcidRain/53_Campbell.pdf -
> This gives a recent study in the west of both Nox and agricultural NH3
> pollution. If you will notice, total nitrogen emissions-depositions are
> not really changing, about two thirds of the nitrogen deposition is
> due to NOx. I have not printed this article out but looked at it on the
> screen. Seems like a complete study, however.
Indeed and its conclusions are interesting
<Quote>
Chronic acidification of surface waters from
atmospheric deposition is NOT a widespread
problem in the Intermountain region. Episodic
acidification is a concern in some high-elevation
headwaters and in some ephemeral ponds. Recent
trends of decreasing sulfate in deposition suggest
that acidification from sulfur compounds is NOT
getting worse; however, it is unclear whether these
trends will persist in the future, and they may be
offset by increasing trends in deposition of
nitrogen compounds.
</Quote>
Note that this study is on acid rain not the
sources of nitrates in drinking water.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is SO2 containing smog, not "real smog" in the general
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > Take a look at a dictionary,
> I grew up in the LA basin! Smog has undergone redefinition in
> the major sense since it left southern England. The Parisian
> area has no SO2 problem, here it is all NOx generated.
Evasion noted
Certainly Europe was very slow to make catalytic converters
mandatory but the effects are already clear. NOx emissions
in Paris began to fall in 1997 and declined by 10% between 2001
and 2002 alone.
http://www.airparif.asso.fr/english/.../evolution.htm
> > The the recent UCLA study should interest you
> The only thing I have followed is that generally the control
> of organics released have reduced the smog level, the NO does not
> get recycled back to NO2 and essentially play a continued catalytic
> role in producing ozone.
Why are you repeating an assertion that has been shown to be
incorrect ?
3 Way catalytic converters DO repeat DO radically reduce
NO and NO2 emissions
http://www.cleanairsys.com/materials...NG%20Sheet.pdf
> So ozone levels are way down, but
> from what I have see so far, NOx levels are not strongly down.
Once again the sources YOU cited state otherwise.
> This may be due to the older vehicles still in the area, however
> and may eventually decrease. But I don`t see this in the broad
> NOx statistics.
I do in the source YOU provided which clearly refers to a 20%
reduction
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/nitrogen.html
"Since 1983, monitored levels of NO2 have decreased 21 percent"
> > Indeed but France still burns large amounts of fossil fuels for
> > other purposes and vehicular emissions from private are
> > NOT the largest cause.
> Not a lot of sulfur containing fuels, however. The country
> ran out of coal a while back. Vehicular fuels, including diesel,
> have been desulfurized for a long time. The SO2 problem in
> the US is due to burning western coal which runs a couple
> of % in sulfur. It is getting rid of that where the foot
> dragging has occurred.
Halleluiah, look back at my first post where I said just that.
> > A survey carried out by Citepa ( CentreInterprofessionnel
> > Technique d'Etudes de la Pollution Atmosphérique)
> >
> > showed the following
> >
> > Diesel engined Heavy Vehicles 17%
> > Agricultural Tractors etc 15%
> > Non catalysed Petrol Vehicles 12%
> > Non catalysed Diesel cars 5%
> > Private cars with catalytic converters were
> > in tenth place with only 3.1%
> That is OK, since I put diesels, truck traffic, etc into
> the same basket with private cars.
Which would appear to be the prime cause of your
erroneous assertions with respect to private automobiles.
The statistics show that even a complete ban on
private automobiles would have a minor effect.
For a real reduction to occur the focus has to shift
to industrial sources and heavy trucks.
> I have not found the
> item on their web page. The importance of vehicular
> transportation in air pollution is undereline by the
> fact that in France the authorities do order traffic
> changes when we get hit with an alert. Paris is not yet
> as bad as Athens where the reduce car traffic.
Which is an easy out for the politicians as they
can be seen to be acting without taking hard
decisions that would affect industry.
> I think it is clear that globally, societies have allowed
> the automobile to occupy too large a place in economic activity,
> neglect of public transportation, train use, especially in freight
> transport. Air pollution is only one aspect of the problem.
Your fixation with the automobile as villain is noted
but the fact remains that with the advent of catalytic converters
it is a LONG way down the list of polluters and if you truly wish
to reduce atmospheric sulphur and NOx emissions a
focus on residential, industrial and heavy good vehicles
emissions would be far more effective if less politically
sexy.
Keith
Mar 2nd 2004, 10:57 pm
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink
On 3/03/04 8:49, in article [email protected],
"walter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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!
>
> Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
> see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
> Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
> Very common here in Germany.
An old Trabi can run down no one on the autoroute!
Anyway, I guess it is Mercedes Uber Alles.
Earl
"walter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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!
>
> Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
> see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
> Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
> Very common here in Germany.
An old Trabi can run down no one on the autoroute!
Anyway, I guess it is Mercedes Uber Alles.
Earl
Mar 2nd 2004, 11:15 pm
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to RethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6B86D4.28817%[email protected]...
> On 3/03/04 8:49, in article
[email protected],
> "walter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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!
> >
> > Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
> > see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
> > Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
> > Very common here in Germany.
> An old Trabi can run down no one on the autoroute!
Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
pollutants than the average western car, thats why the
Hungarians have introduced a scheme to give 10% of
the price of a new SEAT for each Trabi turned in.
Keith
news:BC6B86D4.28817%[email protected]...
> On 3/03/04 8:49, in article
[email protected],
> "walter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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!
> >
> > Yes, as many drivers of cheap cars have a jealousy complex when they
> > see an expensive one: "You drive a 100000 buck Mercedes. I have only a
> > Harakiri 1200 from Korea, and I blame you for this!"
> > Very common here in Germany.
> An old Trabi can run down no one on the autoroute!
Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
pollutants than the average western car, thats why the
Hungarians have introduced a scheme to give 10% of
the price of a new SEAT for each Trabi turned in.
Keith
Mar 2nd 2004, 11:17 pm
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to Rethink
On 3/03/04 11:28, in article [email protected],
"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes, Walter, I drive a BMW and many people in the driving
> newsgroup here exhibit all the symptoms of jealously of
> BMW/Mercedes etc drivers. (although to be honest BMW drivers do
> tend to be fast drivers here and are disliked by the "middle lane
> whatever, clenching the wheel with white knuckles, mouth open"
> type of driver).
Most who have a powerful car will use that power.
Our daughter has a BMW in the US but her main argument is that is lasts
a long time, I think she has over 200,000 miles now and the motor
is judged good for another 100,000.
When she lived in Germany she has a monster older BMW and said she had it
over 200 km on the French autoroute. She live in Frankfurt and at that
time the new autoroute, A4, was not heavily traveled and Germans could
open up. She did. We said nothing.
Apparently the only people who are really frightened to drive at that speed
on the autoroute are grand prix race drivers, some have declared it insane!
Most drivers are not trained to drive at high speeds. Second, the least
error and you have had it. One case a couple of years ago in France
was that of a driver of a Porsche driving at over 200 drifted over
to the soft shoulder a bit and that was it. A single vehicle accident.
I have seen such an accident in California, A bad road is highway 17 from
Silicon Valley over to Santa Cruz. I drove it every day and encountered
some bizarre accidents. Once, in the oncoming traffic I was approaching, a
SUV type vehicle hit the soft shoulder, slide sideways for and then started
to role and role and role, like one sees in a film. It finally stopped.
This was within several miles of a telephone so I did not stop and phoned
the highway patrol, other cars were stopping anyway.
I knew the highway well and assisted at some fatal ones. Our daughter
was hit head on in her pick up truck by a drunk driver on a similar
road from Half Moon Bay over to San Mateo. She ³got² $20,000
from the accident, that was long eaten up in medical bills down stream
(two smashed knees and a face).
As I understand it, most fatal accidents are single vehicle. A error
at 100 km is more forgiving than at 200, or higher.
So the arrogance factor might not be in having the car but thinking
one can drive at that speed.
Earl
"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes, Walter, I drive a BMW and many people in the driving
> newsgroup here exhibit all the symptoms of jealously of
> BMW/Mercedes etc drivers. (although to be honest BMW drivers do
> tend to be fast drivers here and are disliked by the "middle lane
> whatever, clenching the wheel with white knuckles, mouth open"
> type of driver).
Most who have a powerful car will use that power.
Our daughter has a BMW in the US but her main argument is that is lasts
a long time, I think she has over 200,000 miles now and the motor
is judged good for another 100,000.
When she lived in Germany she has a monster older BMW and said she had it
over 200 km on the French autoroute. She live in Frankfurt and at that
time the new autoroute, A4, was not heavily traveled and Germans could
open up. She did. We said nothing.
Apparently the only people who are really frightened to drive at that speed
on the autoroute are grand prix race drivers, some have declared it insane!
Most drivers are not trained to drive at high speeds. Second, the least
error and you have had it. One case a couple of years ago in France
was that of a driver of a Porsche driving at over 200 drifted over
to the soft shoulder a bit and that was it. A single vehicle accident.
I have seen such an accident in California, A bad road is highway 17 from
Silicon Valley over to Santa Cruz. I drove it every day and encountered
some bizarre accidents. Once, in the oncoming traffic I was approaching, a
SUV type vehicle hit the soft shoulder, slide sideways for and then started
to role and role and role, like one sees in a film. It finally stopped.
This was within several miles of a telephone so I did not stop and phoned
the highway patrol, other cars were stopping anyway.
I knew the highway well and assisted at some fatal ones. Our daughter
was hit head on in her pick up truck by a drunk driver on a similar
road from Half Moon Bay over to San Mateo. She ³got² $20,000
from the accident, that was long eaten up in medical bills down stream
(two smashed knees and a face).
As I understand it, most fatal accidents are single vehicle. A error
at 100 km is more forgiving than at 200, or higher.
So the arrogance factor might not be in having the car but thinking
one can drive at that speed.
Earl
Mar 3rd 2004, 12:21 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans to
On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
> pollutants than the average western car
Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
Earl
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
> pollutants than the average western car
Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
Earl
Mar 3rd 2004, 12:52 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans toRethinkPassion for Speed
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6B9A86.28826%[email protected]...
> On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
> > pollutants than the average western car
> Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
> Earl
In Germany perhaps but at the peak there were 120,000
of them on the roads of Budapest and the city council
estimated that taking just 2,000 off the roads reduced the
pollution load by 331,000 kg per year
Keith
news:BC6B9A86.28826%[email protected]...
> On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
> > pollutants than the average western car
> Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
> Earl
In Germany perhaps but at the peak there were 120,000
of them on the roads of Budapest and the city council
estimated that taking just 2,000 off the roads reduced the
pollution load by 331,000 kg per year
Keith
Mar 3rd 2004, 1:11 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans toRethinkPassion for Speed
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:52:41 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6B9A86.28826%[email protected]...
>> On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
>> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
>>> pollutants than the average western car
>> Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
>> Earl
>
> In Germany perhaps but at the peak there were 120,000
> of them on the roads of Budapest and the city council
> estimated that taking just 2,000 off the roads reduced the
> pollution load by 331,000 kg per year
>
> Keith
I think your figures ar a bit suspect.
That makes 165kg / trabi / year.
The 1995 average CO2 for cars in the EU was 186g/km.
So assuming the average car does say 15000km year (just guessing what a
trabi might do),it would produce : 186x15000/1000 = 2790kg CO2 per year.
This would mean that a trabi would on avearage drive only 887km per year,
OR only emmit 1/16th the pollution per km of an average car.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC6B9A86.28826%[email protected]...
>> On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
>> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
>>> pollutants than the average western car
>> Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
>> Earl
>
> In Germany perhaps but at the peak there were 120,000
> of them on the roads of Budapest and the city council
> estimated that taking just 2,000 off the roads reduced the
> pollution load by 331,000 kg per year
>
> Keith
I think your figures ar a bit suspect.
That makes 165kg / trabi / year.
The 1995 average CO2 for cars in the EU was 186g/km.
So assuming the average car does say 15000km year (just guessing what a
trabi might do),it would produce : 186x15000/1000 = 2790kg CO2 per year.
This would mean that a trabi would on avearage drive only 887km per year,
OR only emmit 1/16th the pollution per km of an average car.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
Mar 3rd 2004, 2:17 am
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans toRethinkPassion for Speed
Tim Challenger muttered....
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:52:41 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:BC6B9A86.28826%[email protected]...
>>> On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
>>> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
>>>> pollutants than the average western car
>>> Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
>>> Earl
>>
>> In Germany perhaps but at the peak there were 120,000
>> of them on the roads of Budapest and the city council
>> estimated that taking just 2,000 off the roads reduced the
>> pollution load by 331,000 kg per year
>>
>> Keith
>
> I think your figures ar a bit suspect.
>
> That makes 165kg / trabi / year.
No, if it was a Trabi, you get to count the weight of the parts and pieces
which annually became detached from the corpus indelectus.
TMO
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:52:41 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:BC6B9A86.28826%[email protected]...
>>> On 3/03/04 13:15, in article [email protected], "Keith
>>> Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Trouble as studies have shown it emits 10 times more
>>>> pollutants than the average western car
>>> Since there only are a couple running around, no big deal!
>>> Earl
>>
>> In Germany perhaps but at the peak there were 120,000
>> of them on the roads of Budapest and the city council
>> estimated that taking just 2,000 off the roads reduced the
>> pollution load by 331,000 kg per year
>>
>> Keith
>
> I think your figures ar a bit suspect.
>
> That makes 165kg / trabi / year.
No, if it was a Trabi, you get to count the weight of the parts and pieces
which annually became detached from the corpus indelectus.
TMO
Mar 3rd 2004, 2:34 am
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Washington Post: Autobahn Deaths Force Germans toRethinkPassion for Speed
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:17:13 -0600, Olivers wrote:
>> That makes 165kg / trabi / year.
>
> No, if it was a Trabi, you get to count the weight of the parts and pieces
> which annually became detached from the corpus indelectus.
:-)
But could be replace by a bit of papier mache and airfix paint.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
>> That makes 165kg / trabi / year.
>
> No, if it was a Trabi, you get to count the weight of the parts and pieces
> which annually became detached from the corpus indelectus.
:-)
But could be replace by a bit of papier mache and airfix paint.
--
Tim.
If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
