Slashdot Mirror
The World's Fastest-Growing Cause of Death Is Pollution From Car Exhaust
pigrabbitbear writes "Cars, once again, are killing us. They're killing us in crashes and accidents, yes, and they're encouraging us to grow obese and then killing us a little more slowly. But, more than ever before, they're killing us with their pollution. Particulate air pollution, along with obesity, is now the two fastest-growing causes of death in the world, according to a new study published in the Lancet. The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution – particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia, where a boom in car use has choked the streets of India and China's fast-expanding cities with smog."
Cars want to be dominant form of intelligent life on the planet!
Just as soon as they get the bugs out of the in-dash entertainment systems, we're toast!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Diesel exhaust not only smells noxious, it also causes cancer.
You may think that diesel makes you an environmental superfag, but those of us on the road behind you have to roll up our windows due to pungent smell spewing from the back of your car.
Please take your diesel to a scrap yard or drive it into a tree.
We're seeing this because we're approximately at the peak of oil production. As the reserves dry up this will cease to be a big problem
Darwin approves!
..to 2 billion people when you consider India + China. That means automobile transportation is quickly becoming NORMAL in those areas. That means HORRENDOUS smog problems for the next 4-6 decades in those areas.
In short, this isn't news, it was expected when you consider how much of the world is still developing quickly.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
More congestion = more pollution, so are the greens always the ones fighting improved roadworks that will relieve congestion? Seriously, the more clogged traffic is, the worse your mileage, the more wear and tear on your car, the more pollution, the more time you waste, the more accidents and more people are hurt and killed in accidents. Free flowing consistent traffic is always safer, less polluting, faster, less wasteful from early wear and tear on the car and so on....
What possible real reason can there be to fight things like expanding roadworks from 2 lanes to 3 lanes other than a desire to tell other people how to live their lives. If your entire argument depends on trying to make something suck for someone else to gain converts, chances are pretty good your on the wrong side of the argument.
How many people would be dying each year if we didn't have cars?
Say 10 million.
So really cars are saving our lives.
Well it has to be something, What would people prefer it to be, smallpox?
In Asia there are a lot of old 2-stroke powered vehicles about, each one of them pumps out up to 50x more pollutant than a relatively new car. Combined with heavy traffic means lots of them idling in the street at any one time. Many of these engines are only a couple of horsepower and cost only a few $100 to replace with a new 4-stroke model but people don't have this kind of money to spare so they are stuck with these old polluting engines.
Back in the time before carbon offsetting was dismissed as 'buying indulgences' one of the things offsetting companies spent money on was buying 4-stroke petrol engines (or less polluting 2-strokes) to put the old 2-stroke engines out of circulation.
You might as well get use to it.
At the airlines at LAX hundreds of trucks show up dropping of freight. some places have 8 doors all the trucks are docked with engines running.
Fumes go right inside add LA freeways all the cars coming and going the planes taking off boy that burns a gallon or two.
After 20 years or so can you still find a living freight agent. I think so.
Is is because of the accent?
No brain, no pain.
From The Lancet article:
Interpretation Worldwide, the contribution of different risk factors to disease burden has changed substantially, with a shift away from risks for communicable diseases in children towards those for non-communicable diseases in adults. These changes are related to the ageing population, decreased mortality among children younger than 5 years, changes in cause-of-death composition, and changes in risk factor exposures. New evidence has led to changes in the magnitude of key risks including unimproved water and sanitation, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, and ambient particulate matter pollution. The extent to which the epidemiological shift has occurred and what the leading risks currently are varies greatly across regions. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, the leading risks are still those associated with poverty and those that affect children.
So we are just moving from underdeveloped causes of death, up to luxury causes of death . . .
Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
I blame Windows, as a new leading cause of death . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The first article mentions fastest growing, which is to say not necessarily the most prominent factor. Also, some weird wording is going on
The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution–particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia
So, in the rest of the world 1.1 million people died from air pollution, that might come from cars. I wonder how many of those 2.1 million asians were from China?
The second article directly contradicts the summary viewpoint:
In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]).
... whatever
And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come. Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere). And for someone like me who lives next to a busy road, we get much lower sound.
For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
in the USA the air has become a lot cleaner in the last 20 some years due to the requirement that all cars sold have one
I'm still getting my late 70's muscle car.
455cu - 4 Speed......10mpg on a good day.
Ahh....the good old days.
I actually want a bit of a resto-mod, so I can get the suspension and all upgraded, bore the engine out...get about 400+ RWHP.
And yes, it will be a daily driver. I can afford it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Or maybe you're thinking of "modern cars available for sale in the USA" and not "modern cars." Chinese cars are known to be dangerous garbage in every way, and this article specifically mentions the increase in Asia.
I'm guessing you don't live in the US?!?
Geez, most families I know, have pretty much one car per person old enough to drive in the home.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm curious, how do you prove that a death was directly related to car exhaust?
That's not true in every country.
After living in a developing country for a while, my snot turned greyish blue from the exhaust from cars (and probably more from buses and trucks, based on visual evidence). Pollution from vehicles and cars can get really bad.
It's because British diesel receives superior dental care, and eats a healthier diet of butter and pork fat.
We should make a country wide movement to ban cars. Or at least limit the amount the gas tank can hold.
you'll know its the older vehicles with the 2-stroke engines and zero emission controls that belch out the black smoke all over the place.
I can't drive behind one because they make me quickly sick. But the modern diesels such as the VW/Audi TDi and the Mercedes CDI are clean, no smoke.
Billions are being spent on airport security to save lives. How many die each year in air planes for any reason? If governments really wanted to save lives, safer cars and pollution are two more appropriate subjects for huge spending.
Motors in developing nations have pretty much no pollution control, and many are badly maintained which makes the problem even worse.
If there are regulations, they're toothless or ignored or bribed away. Those motors have to be cheap! It's not really a surprise that big cities are choked in a toxic miasma.
Up yours, all you so-called car nuts badmouthing those "wasteful" pollution control systems. Yeah they cost extra, yeah you have to engineer around the way they change engine characteristics. Not choking to death on smog is still absolutely worth it.
You did read the part about 2/3 of the deaths being in India and China, right? They've got very few of the emissions controls that we have in Europe, North America, and other parts of Asia (like Japan and South Korea).
End of line..
I think it's worth saving 3.2 million people.
When the world hit 7 billion, did you complain about overpopulation?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
We must stop using cars in America. They are deadly and, like firearms, need to be banned
I see this all the time:
"Cars kill ______" or "car strikes _______"
Cars are inanimate objects. DRIVERS kill _____, drivers strike _____.
There was a UK traffic study that found that police cited driver error in something like 90% of crashes. Topmost cause: failure to use due care.
People are more concerned about having a coffee, texting, changing the radio station, or just tuning out and running on autopilot because there's no consequences. Crash and your insurance pays for the damages+injuries; the most you'll get in the US, unless your conduct is completely egregious, is a civil fine and a hike in your insurance rate.
For fuck's sakes, we have insurance companies here that advertise "accident forgiveness" policies!
Until an at-fault collision involves having to appear in criminal court, people will keep right on smashing into things - other cars, stationary objects, and human beings.
Please help metamoderate.
Um, the Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical journal, not a newspaper.
Ever been out of the United States, Floppy? Try Mexico City, Mexico; Ahwaz, Iran; or Linfen, China. Those cities will turn your freshly showered pure-white cottontail black before the end of the day! Regrettably, many countries do not have the same type of increasing restrictions on auto-exhaust and factory emissions that the United States requires to better air quality. Further, this is as much about heat as it is about exhaust. Heat traps airborne pollutants. Heat combined with growing populations, massive urbanization and industrialization, and ever more cars on the road; yeah it's going to lead to more deaths due to respiratory problems, cancers, and other diseases.
It's a shock to no one but you, Bucky.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Be sure to take some photos when you get it, I wanna see it.
You can prove anything with statistics.
Globally, we're living much longer than we lived even twenty years ago. There are more cars than there were twenty years ago so I guess that means cars make us live longer. ie. more cars == more life
I know ... correlation is not causation. (Yes, I do know what a spurious correlation is.)
In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]). Dietary risk factors and physical inactivity collectively accounted for 100% (95% UI 92—108) of global DALYs in 2010, with the most prominent dietary risks being diets low in fruits and those high in sodium. Several risks that primarily affect childhood communicable diseases, including unimproved water and sanitation and childhood micronutrient deficiencies, fell in rank between 1990 and 2010, with unimproved water and sanitation accounting for 09% (04—16) of global DALYs in 2010. However, in most of sub-Saharan Africa childhood underweight, HAP, and non-exclusive and discontinued breastfeeding were the leading risks in 2010, while HAP was the leading risk in south Asia. The leading risk factor in Eastern Europe, most of Latin America, and southern sub-Saharan Africa in 2010 was alcohol use; in most of Asia, North Africa and Middle East, and central Europe it was high blood pressure. Despite declines, tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke remained the leading risk in high-income north America and western Europe. High body-mass index has increased globally and it is the leading risk in Australasia and southern Latin America, and also ranks high in other high-income regions, North Africa and Middle East, and Oceania.
The news here is that the risk factors have shifted in the last 20 years, not that "OMG cars are baaaaad", still, salty foods are a lot more likely too kill you than a car exhaust.
I'm still getting my late 70's muscle car.
Such a vehicle did not exist. Auto manufacturers stopped making such cars after the 73 oil crisis.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
deaths from car exhaust are probably at their historical low
Considering history goes back well before the invention of the automobile, or even of the internal combustion or steam engines, I'd say that it's guaranteed that deaths from car exhaust are not at a historical low.
Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors
You're forgetting a very important factor: cars are also much, much more prolific than they were 50 years ago; by 2011, there were over 1,000,000,000 cars operating worldwide.
Let this be a lesson: ceteris paribus may work perfectly in theory, but when put to practical application it's completely worthless bullshit.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Fastest growing can be misleading: https://xkcd.com/1102/
Yes they would. Walking, cycling, going by bus / train / tube / tram. Maybe this would even end people driving 2 hours a day from A to B whilst the same number of people drives 2 hours from B to A each day just to work.
I visited London in 1985. After just one day, my snot was black from all the soot. Was disconcerting to blow my nose and see a white tissue turn black. I hear that today, London is much cleaner.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
On the contrary, there are probably at least 3.2 million people in the world worth getting rid of.
Cars kill twenty children every hour. Nobody is ever charged. If those children had rifles to protect themselves, none of them would be hit. The cars would avoid them, just like they avoid tractor trailers.
We have 2.33 cars for each person old enough to drive. Everyone has a work vehicle, a leisure vehicle, and a shared truck.
As comparison, alcohol causes 2.5 million deaths every year, according to World Health Organization.
late 70's muscle car
There is no such thing.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
So much stupid in so few words. I stand in awe.
lets solve over population by giving crazy people guns.
oh, you already tried that.
Problem is everybody is so self-important these days they can't imagine how the world could possibly continue without them and that they must not die. The world would be a better place if we could lose an additional 3.2 million people each year.
Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors that, if anything, deaths from car exhaust are probably at their historical low.
And you've been modded insightful for simply declaring a study wrong on personal incredulity.
However, I'll tackle your claim: yes, the very expensive, CA-emissions-compliant car in your driveway is a very clean car. However, it is not representative of what you will find in the major, growing cities of the world, and before you say "but the major cities of the world are like California", you'd best check your ethnocentrism at the door; a lot of developing countries, you'll find vehicles that are outside their warranty period and definitely not as emissions-compliant. Japan, for example, makes it incredibly difficult to hang on to an older car, mostly to drive their economy. The older cars get shipped off to the other asian countries, where they're not nearly as well maintained.
Further, the problem is that people and goods who used to get around by more efficient, lower-pollution means - bicycles, walking, etc. - are now getting around by cars, and probably they're by themselves in that car. The infrastructure can't handle it, so aside from their being many more tailpipes, they're all attached to cars sitting in jammed traffic. Pollution goes up from both. It doesn't matter how low-pollution a car is if it wouldn't have been there in the first place, and is now causing more pollution by virtue of contributing to congestion.
The smartest cities are forcing people out of their cars and trucks; Paris, for example, banned large trucks from the core of the city - and bike cargo delivery has taken off as a result. London has a congestion charge now, and it's been nothing but Win, with the money going towards public transit.
Please help metamoderate.
Seriously. The '74 Firebird SD455 was pretty much the last muscle car until the Mustang GT 5.0 HO came out in the late 80s. The 1977 Trans Am was beautiful, but it had a 400 ci engine that was technically a small block and it made only 200 HP.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
...because the Japanese force, through fees/fines/whatnot, old cars off the road. It's done mostly to bolster the economy.
The used cars are shipped off throughout Asia. They're just exiting their warranty period, which is about how long the emissions system components are designed to last.
Please help metamoderate.
You pretty much have to walk or make use of cabs and buses in large cities anyways. So obviously they only have pollution problems because of suburban and rural owners.
Yes, and it's a good thing that buses and cabs don't produce exhaust!
Dark Reflection
let's ban all cars. While we're at it, let's also ban guns, airplanes, fast food, alcohol, cigarettes, electronics, books... in short, anything that's man made. Let's all go back to live in the woods and re-tune ourselves to the rhythms of nature.
You forgot to give them crystal and bath salts also.
The great thing about an electric car is simplicity. You have a battery, a motor, a differential, and a light-weight cooling system (mainly for the batteries). The engine is basically one moving part that doesn't reciprocate, you don't need a multi-gear transmission with a shifting mechanism, and there's no high-heat to degrade everything. No oil changes, rare coolant fluid changes.
Although you may have to take it in for maintenance, it should be relatively rare compared to an internal combustion engine.
Especially those bus lanes that sit empty while everyone else is practically parked and spewing extra exhaust the whole time.
You're closer than you realize.
Well, 1976 was the last year for the 455 in the Trans Am....that and '75 cars can be gotten fairly cheaply still in good shape. A bit of work on the engine (more aggressive cam, bore it out, dual exhausts, etc) and you can get a pretty high HP car.
I believe 1974 was the last year for the Super Duty 455 engine which was a monster, and again, a little coaxing can make that thing major, but the SD engines command a pretty high $$$.
I'm looking for a '75-'76...last year of 445, and last year for the round headlights, they switched to the eagle eye looking Smokey and the Bandit look in '77 and yes, they only have a 400ci engine in it.
Strangely enough, Smokey and the Bandit was supposed to have been filmed in about '76...but production was put off for various reasons. Some of the bandit cars used in filming were actually '76's...with 455 4 speed...but the noses on those were redone to look like the 77's.
Yes, the insurance bastards and the oil crisis was putting a stake in the heart of the US Muscle car at this point, the TA 455 was about the last gasp, and they need a little work to bring them up to potential. But man, when you do...torque monsters and sound amazing.
I don't remember what year they introduced the catalytic converter, but if you get early enough, you don't have to worry about those fuckers either...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
With just a little work on it, it can definitely be through of as a muscle car.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's as funny as it is sad and telling, that everyone is quite displeased with the recommendation but haven't recognized that this argument is somehow very familiar...
...in action.
hmmm... I'd say that's a logical fallacy, but it may be a good point. does 0 (from non-existence) count as a low, or as absent data?
This is a bit above my head... do you think you could make this into a car analogy? This is Slashdot, after all.
"Today, a car emits less pollution travelling at full speed than a parked car did in 1970 from leaks."
-- Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist, see http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-mustang-test.aspx
lets solve over population by giving crazy people guns.
oh, you already tried that.
Ass.
117 dead in auto accidents / day, "There are lots of cars. They aren't so dangerous."
3.2 million people from pollution / year, "Fuck it. We're overpopulated anyways."
Dozens of people, "Burn the Bill of Rights. It's uncivilized."
So your post is flamebait, the post of the schmuck you replied to isn't? Must be opposite day in dumbfuck land.
"through of". That totally fucking figures.
No, we solve it by taking away the guns, Look at Chicago and the fact that 61 of the 62 Mass shootings in america in the past 30 years have taken place in gun free zones.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So why drive, if there are so many buses getting there faster?
sustainable living
Globalization is. All this shipping on giant cargo ships from one continent to another is the real problem. The cargo ships use the lowest grade fuel available, which pollutes up to 50x more sulphur and tons of particulate.
Early catalytic converters were crap. However, here in the 21st century we have "high-flow" cats that don't significantly increase backpressure in the exhaust.
Othr things that have improved since the 1970s:
- Horsepower per litre, thanks to alloy blocks, overhead cams, EFI.
- Fuel consumption per horsepower, thanks to all the above
- Handling, thanks to disc brakes, independent suspension
- Safety, thanks to seat belts, crumple zones, ABS
All that aside, I can see the appeal of a muscle car. If I had the time and money, I'd love to take a big boxy 1970s beast, throw away the ancient cast-iron carburetted engine, and drop in something like the 4.5L Lexus V8. Here in .au these engines are reasonably cheap from wrecked japanese imports. EFI, all-alloy, quad-cam, unleaded fuel friendly, and no dicking aorund tweaking carbs or constantly adjusting ignition points.
It may annoy the purists, but I would be able to spend more time _driving_ it.
sustainable living
We, the supreme nanny state, get to decide what you "need."
And even if a car is a basic city fuel-efficient put-put car, we'll ban it if it has an "evil" sporty look to it. And we'll limit purchases to one every five years, and require a background check and mental health examination.
http://xkcd.com/1102/
Passing legislation that would curtail automobile-related deaths would, based on these numbers and other numbers related to car-deaths, save many more lives that passing legislation that would ban citizens from owning firearms.
The numbers speak for themselves. Cars kill far more people than guns.
Now if only they could ban cars like they did with indoor smoking. For all of the clamouring over that, I would guess that it (car exhaust) is much worse - it certainly feels that way when walking or cycling.
I can see your point....and hey, whatever makes you happy, I mean, life is SHORT...do what you can to make yourself happy while you're here on earth processing oxygen.
But there is something to be said about driving a very large displacement engine. Those things are fun to burn rubber off the line at the drop of a pedal.
I'd get one of the 455 cars and do some modifications to it. Put a more aggressive cam, bore it out, etc.
And one nice thing about the old fashioned carburetor car is..it doesn't require a computer science degree nor a computer to work on it.
Simple design allows you to be a shade tree mechanic, and work around on your own car without having to get OBII (sp?) codes, readers, etc. Just listen to the engine, change the plugs, do this do that. A car with not a whole lot more than an engine and drive train is something easy and fun to work on on the weekends.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"China's fast-expanding cities with smog.""
should be:
China's fast-expanding cities with pollution."
Smog is smoke and fog.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The GGP didn't say the rate was at a historic low. Just "deaths". So unless car exhaust is bringing people back to life, the historic low was before the invention.
6.5L and only 200HP, dear lord were those cars pathetic. Today you can produce that kind of HP from a NA 2.4L or a turbo 2L.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
But there is something to be said about driving a very large displacement engine. Those things are fun to burn rubber off the line at the drop of a pedal.
I either love or hate people like you, because I get to pass you on the twisty roads I like to drive on, where your big V8 is a liability, or you don't get out of the way, and I'm stuck behind you the whole way. My car tops out at about 100 mph, but that's fast enough, and more than fast enough in a non-handling land yacht like what you propose to restore.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6.5L and only 200HP, dear lord were those cars pathetic. Today you can produce that kind of HP from a NA 2.4L or a turbo 2L.
You do not need a turbo. Both Honda and Nissan have 2 liter engines putting out over 200 horsepower without excessive compression, using variable valve timing. Problem is, they both have significantly less than 200 ft-lb of torque. My truck might only have 120 RWHP, but it has around 300 ft-lb... My car only has 120 BHP, but it has around 200 ft-lb... Both will beat most vehicles across the intersection :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I visited London in 1985. After just one day, my snot was black from all the soot. Was disconcerting to blow my nose and see a white tissue turn black. I hear that today, London is much cleaner.
That can happen if you take the Underground a lot in one day, as there's a lot of dust in the tunnels. Supposedly (I read the research, but don't care to try and find it again right now) it's safe, since the particles are mostly iron oxides from the steel wheels rubbing the steel rails, and are big enough that your nose filters them.
I wasn't born in 1985, and moved to London in 2004, so what I think is "bad" might be nothing compared to what it was. Certainly the pollution in London is less of a problem than in most large American cities I've visited, but worse than all other western/northern European cities.
See: http://www.airqualitynow.eu/comparing_home.php and http://airnow.gov/
In Beijing I felt sick because of the pollution, and it stung my throat. See http://bjair.info/
(Last time I checked I concluded that all these sites used the same numeric index, but the EU one's colours are different.)
Yes, and it's a good thing that buses and cabs don't produce exhaust!
Of course they do, but they don't have to. Cabs in particular can be plug-in hybrids, and taxi stands could feature quick-charging stations. Buses can be full-electric in some cases, and hopefully someone will eventually come up with a plug-in hybrid system big enough for a bus (so far attempts to make them reliable have failed, AFAIK) and then we can have buses which sometimes run on batteries and sometimes run on diesel (or whatever) and sometimes run on and charge from overhead wires.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16 of the largest super container ships emit as much sulphur as all of the worlds cars.
They typically run 24 hours a day, up to 16 cylinder 107,000 horsepower engines.
International Maritime Organization rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is up to 4,500 times more than is allowed in automobile fuel. Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions.
Look it up, Google/Bing/whatever and be shocked.
After typing this, I found this info here: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/23/1618229/one-giant-cargo-ship-pollutes-as-much-as-50m-cars
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
Maybe the analogy isn't obvious enough?
This is something I know a little bit about having travelled through many South American cities especially. One was so bad ai felt sick with a metallic taste after 20 minutes walking from home.
Here's a few tips I've learnt.
1) There is a kickstarter project for a blueooth device that logs air quality in various metrics
2) I don't know where I read this but I heard the pollution drops off quickly at less than 30m from the road
3) Cars soak up more pollution than bicycles - so change your air filter. In fact, where can we buy carbon activated filter material for a custom upgrade to squeeze into our cars?
4) I wore a full gas mask on a few car journeys. It can make the difference between getting out of your car feeling like yoiu've run a marathon and getting out feeling just a bit cramped. It looks silly but why not try it to confirm to yourself if there's a problem worth working on that "pollen" filter?
5) You can get slimmer masks designed for cyclists. I mention this on my blog. Filtering is a compilcated business. I've found the main thing is to filter those particulates including the rubber off the tyres. I'm not too sure about the gasses. These have an effect but it seems less immediate to me.
6) You can get plants to filter air in your home. I'd like to see a air con system intregrating such a system on a rooftop. There was a Slashdot article on this.
7) You can get a 12v airfilter to go on your passenger seat but it isn't cheap and it works by recycling the air rather than catching it on the way in
8) Looking at truckers forums I've noticed this is definately a big problem that is killing people. This is totally unneccessary. I hope we can help them with cabin filters?
A blog I run for the wealth
Yes, and it's a good thing that buses and cabs don't produce exhaust!
The buses in my city are mostly powered by LPG gas and the cabs are usually gas powered or electric hybrids.
It doesn't do much for CO2 emissions, but public transport does reduce local particulates.
Especially those bus lanes that sit empty while everyone else is practically parked and spewing extra exhaust the whole time.
There's plenty of evidence that traffic expands to fill the roads available to it. If bus lanes were released to the public, give it a few months and those lanes would be chock full of traffic just like the other roads, and it would all be a giant parking lot, just like before.
Because the bus won't circle the parking lot 50 times waiting for the spot by the door to open up.
Gun control speech.
I guess that Respro masks will become more fashionable in the coming years.
With just a little work on it, it can definitely be through of as a muscle car.
The same could be said about my 1990 Geo Metro ;-)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
lets solve over population by giving crazy people guns.
Bat-shit crazy Africans and Arabs/Muslims are killing each other left and right with guns.
oh, you already tried that.
Not effective enough. Not even bat-shit crazy Europeans with guns puts that much of a dent in world population.
The REALLY effective way to reduce the global population is bat-shit crazy Muslims with nukes.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You can get 200HP from an ordinary 1.6L I4 petrol engine now, like the one they put in the Peugeot RCZ.
The new F1 cars will also be using 1.6L petrol, but they rev much higher.
give me some useable public transit so I can visit the fucking specialists in L.A. when I need to and not take a god damn entire day just to get there. Right now, it's easier for me to drive the distance and do a few other errands while down there but if I had to take our miserable excuse for public transit, I'd have to leave the day before, stay overnight and then have the fucking appointment cancelled/changed on me after I've already spent time/money getting down there. That's why I have a car - don't have a credit card so can't rent one when needed, which would make more sense. Oh well, once I'm dead I wont give a damn as they're planting me ass up and putting a rose bush there.
Huh? The RCZ uses a turbo 1.6L not a naturally aspirated engine, still quit impressive though since 120+ bhp/L used to be the top end of supercar territory.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Which engines are those? The current Civic Si uses a 200HP 2.4L, and the Altima produces only 175HP in 2.5L.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
a huge portion of the smog in any city is from cars idling in drive thru restaurants. So yeah, ban fast food and we all get cleaner air.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Cars kill more people then terrorist, so why aren't we having a war against them?
How about the TSA scans peeps going into car dealers?
How about the fact that I am more likely to die driving a car then to die by a terrorist act?
For the record, I do not drive, but I still am more likely to die driving a car then to die by a terrorist act.
Be seeing you...
I'm almost certain he was talking about the deaths per car rate.
The Lancet study is about risk factors leading to death and not about causes of death. It is impossible to say how many people died just because of air pollution. What they have published is estimates based on models. If the models are wrong, their estimates are also wrong.
What if you count deaths per car? Then it might make sense.
Especially during the time when there were zero cars. Then a single car would have been responsible for infinite deaths.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The Chinese and Indians have been competing with us for jobs, natural resources and economic growth for years now and often at the expense of environmental quality. If they want to go on poisoning themselves, why should we be concerned? Indeed, a few less Chinese and Indians competing for jobs and resources benefits us Americans and Europeans and unlike some other emissions, smog and soot are mainly localized problems which tend to punish most those who produced them in the first place. So excuse me while I enjoy a bit of Schadenfreude over the environmental problems of our Chinese and Indian competitors; it couldn't have happened to nicer people after all.
. . . you'd better link cars to erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, we're driving.
-- Knowledge is power. -- Francis Bacon
Still pretty bad, one of Europe's most polluted cities and the Government does naff all about it.
London exceeds European pollution limits even with loop hole
Hundreds of annoying people charging £60+ for parking offences thousands of timers a day, but you never see anyone checking exhaust emissions. And Taxis and Buses are filthy polluters as are trucks, nothing substantial done.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Which engines are those? The current Civic Si uses a 200HP 2.4L,
I don't know which one the Honda one is, I only remarked on it at the time. The Nissan engine is the SR20VET and it's been what, a decade since they stopped production of the Silva? 200hp from 2 liters without a turbo in a production vehicle is old news.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The biggest pollution problems are in big cities in poorer countries.
They have the same problems there we did early in our car eras... that streets aren't wide or good, safety is nonexistent etc. Compared to our early car eras they have far less time to act. And they mostly don't have the public transit infrastructure as a guard against congestion.
The answer is actually very simple. To improve infrastructure for what is, other than walking, already the dominant mode of transport, bicycling. Costs a heck of a lot less than car infrastructure, cheaper to maintain, works better in high density areas anyway since they take so much less room and are so much less dangerous to pedestrians.
And if they want some evidence of the viability of the approach in a modern city, and look for ways to make it work well, they should go to Amsterdam. And it's not an isolated thing, bicycling is enjoying a mini-resurgence all over the world. Hard to say how far it will go, but it should be another clear sign that rushing headlong toward cars has MAJOR downsides.
The 2.0 L (1998 cc) SR20VET was the first turbocharged engine from Nissan
The SR20VE came close to 100HP/L but fell a bit short and is no longer produced. In fact if you look through all of Nissan's engines none that are currently in production do 100HP/L without forced induction, and they're really not alone because it takes a heck of a lot of work to do that and you probably can't pass emissions standards because you have to run too rich.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Do all countries now basically require unleaded gas? Or do some countries allow leaded?
Well,, this is just one fun car..as with anything, different tools for different jobs.
My current car (the muscle car will be my 2nd car)...is quite adept at handling the road quite well, turbo charged, 2 seater and likely would give you a run for your money on a twisty road. It goes over 100mph too.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And with a little work, to un-restrict the airflow, put in a bit more aggressive cam, and bore out the engine a bit...and I'll easily have close to 500HP in the thing.
I can buy a TA close to this for only about $17K currently....any other car near 500HP you can think of I can get for this kind of $$?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sure, there are plenty of 500HP hopped up Civic Si's for under $10k, for a bit more you can build up a ZX3 Focus to do 500HP, basically if you don't care about fuel economy you can build up most modern 4 bangers to do 4-500HP for the same kind of money you'd sink into a 70's POS.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The SR20VE came close to 100HP/L but fell a bit short and is no longer produced
Er yeah, obviously I meant VE, not VET, thanks. It was 205BHP. (I have owned a Z31 and three S13s...) And indeed, it's no longer produced. A better question than how can you produce 200 hp from a 2 liter engine without a turbo is why would you want an engine without a turbo? Turbochargers are fantastic. You don't have to use them to burn more fuel, you can use them to carry around less engine. The engine I always wanted in my S13 was the CA18DET, which I understand to have 180BHP stock, which would be fine with me. I never really wanted that badly for power with my KA24E except when going up hills, which is the same time I'm dissatisfied with my OM617.951, or for that matter my A185 or whatever model my 7.3 IDI has.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My current car (the muscle car will be my 2nd car)...is quite adept at handling the road quite well, turbo charged, 2 seater and likely would give you a run for your money on a twisty road. It goes over 100mph too.
If you want a land yacht, why not start with a Mercedes body, either a W116, W126, or W140? Swap a 350 into it and slap some eBay ex-race parts into it and you can have handling and torque. I've driven land yachts, hell my first car was a 1960 Dodge Dart 2dr with a 12:1 compression 318 and a 4bbl (premium plus octane booster, baby...) at 4700 pounds! But the last great Mercedes are, well, great. Parts for W126 are even cheap and there's lots of them with rotten motors. The gas motors weren't that great and the diesels are oft-abused.
I used to have a squirrely little car, but now I live in super pothole country. My truck has hard springs, but I really only use it for heavy loads.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When the world hit 7 billion, did you complain about overpopulation?
Really?
Holy crap, did the moderators miss this gem!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that a vehicle can't handle because it has a V8. Italian sports cars have had V8 and V12 engines as large or larger.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"The REALLY effective way to reduce the global population is bat-shit crazy Muslims with nukes."
And short fuses.
A bit of work on the engine (more aggressive cam, bore it out, dual exhausts, etc) and you can get a pretty high HP car.
How does that contradict my point that the auto manufacturers stopped making them?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Especially during the time when there were zero cars. Then a single car would have been responsible for infinite deaths.
Don't try to make clever statements by being bad at math.
During a time when there are zero cars, a single car isn't responsible for anything. There's zero cars. Hence, not a single car.