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!
Depends on the diesel. US diesel is nasty, its much better in the UK.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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
..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.
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.
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
If it were possible to build our way out of congestion, why hasn't it happened? Why is traffic a problem almost everywhere?
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
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.
Because evidence indicates that roadway expansions do not reduce congestion, but increase it in the medium term: study. You know what reduced congestion in my city? Mass transit. They put in a train and more buses, and the congestion in the area dropped substantially.
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.
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
Because by the time you get done with all the intergovernmental squabbling, environmental impact studies, lawsuits, protests, community meetings, and court orders the new road can't handle the traffic anymore, because the demand has increased past what it was designed to carry decades ago.
Example: rebuilding the bridge between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. They've spent over a million dollars on nothing but planning and meetings and draft EIS paperwork, and they are still no closer to even moving a shovelful of dirt. The City of Portland won't move unless there's an extra $1B of light rail that Vancouver doesn't want, and doesn't want to pay for. Vancouver won't move unless the bridge is toll-free like the existing span. The Coast Guard won't let them build unless it's X feet above the Columbia River so that ships can get through, but the FAA wants the overall bridge height to be under X feet due to the flight paths of Pearson Field which is a mile or less away, giving the engineers and architects all of 70 vertical feet to house the superstructure, roadway deck, and lighting. Portland wants an "iconic" (read: expensive) bridge design, where Vancouver just wants a bridge that Clark County residents can get across to be to work on time. Greenies want to cover the whole thing with a "bioroof" to try to make an interstate highway somehow carbon neutral, and add a shedload of cost, as well as eat valuable volume from the z-height allotment discussed above. Etc. etc.
They've been "planning" for 4 years now, and the cost just keeps going up, while the same obsolete crumbling infrastructure just keeps clogging up for more hours per day.
Exactly, stop driving and get on the fucking bus or train. Less cars is the solution, not more roads.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
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.
Diesel in the US still smells. I was just behind a brand new Jetta TDI at a stoplight with my windows open and it still smells. Granted there was no big dark cloud of particulates like I remember from the diesels when I was young, but they definitely still smell bad.
I drive a brand new Jetta TDI every (other) day, and have not experienced this noxious odor you speak of.
Perhaps the owner of the particular car you were behind doesn't take very good care of it?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Be sure to take some photos when you get it, I wanna see it.
Funny as the link you provided states otherwise:
That's funny because the article you linked to states the opposite:
" The data also suggests that a new lane kilometer of roadway diverts little trafc from other roads. Interestingly, the study also found no evidence that public transit affects the number of kilometres travelled by vehicles. These ndings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat trafc congestion and suggest congestion pricing as the main candidate tool to curb trafc congestion."
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.
I'm in Texas - we throw a ton of money at highways, and stomp over all sorts of environmental concerns.
And we still can't keep up.
The basic problem: we can add load to a roadway (new houses, shopping centers, simply driving to farther destinations) in parallel. Roads are only as good as their weakest link; effectively, we can only add to them sequentially.
I've never seen an enlarged roadway that reduced congestion.
The reason? I think most of us have a given level of congestion that we're willing to tolerate. Bigger road just means more people flock to it, or travel at peak times, and it reaches exactly the same level of congestion. (I drive to work at 6.30am to avoid traffic. If the road were enlarged to three lanes either way, I bet I could travel at 7.30am with the same level of traffic as now. The enlargement wouldn't have reduced pollution at all.)
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"
Carpooling and intelligent work scheduling works too. Before the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, there were predictions of massive gridlock and athletes failing to make it to events because they were stuck in traffic. As a result, the L.A. metro area instituted a massive voluntary anti-traffic campaign. Individuals were encouraged to carpool. Companies were encouraged to spread out their business hours. Instead of having everyone work 9-5, start times ranged from 6, 6:30, 7, 7:30, etc. to 10.
When the Olympics happened, it was beautiful. I (while carpooling) didn't get stuck in traffic once during those two weeks. The only times I've seen the freeways less congested were on Thanksgiving evening or Christmas morning. Then the Olympics ended and everyone decided if the freeways were that clear, it was ok for them to drive again. Sigh.
On the contrary, there are probably at least 3.2 million people in the world worth getting rid of.
You first.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Adding an extra lane in each direction requires a lot of space. If you're inside a city often the city is built right up to the edges of the roads. At least where I am it's not the environmentalists who protest road expansions, it's the people who are going to lose their land and buildings to create room to expand the road.
Population distribution. We have moved away from many small and medium sized towns to smaller number of larger towns. Visit a small to mid size town sometime and you'll discover their idea of rush hour is about 15 minutes long.
If you were to think in terms of computers our current model in the US and Canada lacks load distribution. We're trying to process too much data (traffic) with too little I/O bandwidth (lanes) available to do it with. We also have a significantly increasing load (population) with no good way to redistribute (force people to move back to towns and smaller cities) the load and our expected volume is only going up (genocide is frowned upon).
In short we're adding capacity slower than we're adding load. If the system were a computer you'd be talking about trying to run modern loads on a 386 with 4 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. The bottom line is you have a choice, reduce the load or upgrade capacity. Since it's politically impractical to reduce the load that means we /have/ to upgrade the roads.
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?
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.
Your own study refutes your claim that mass transit is somehow better than traditional road capacity with the following wording:
"These ïndings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat trafïc congestion".
Mass transit works well within a limited context, outside of the limited context mass transit's effectiveness starts to fall apart quickly. If you live within a core city and are traveling to another part of a core city it can work well. If your in a suburb and traveling to another suburb your trip could easily take a day or more, if it is even possible. Once your outside the suburbs mass transit is simply non-existent.
Additional lanes are needed for all of the places that traditional mass transit doesn't work well. This means most suburban environments, especially those that go from one suburb to another. The day of everyone traveling from the suburbs to downtown and back was dead and buried decades ago. It simply isn't viable to provide mass transit at the levels people need in the suburbs.
By the way I take mass transit to work.
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
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.
Really, European cars get the same mileage in city or highway driving? Wow, how come your own mileage ratings argue with you? Even if you shut off your engine (start stop has been common in the US for the last several years as well), you still have to accelerate to speed. Acceleration is the part that creates the most pollution and burns the most fuel. The idea that simply shutting off your engine for a few seconds is going to negate this is laughable. Please, just do a little bit of googling first, is that too much to ask?
Most traffic is from ring point to ring point and has been for many years. Most jobs are from ring point to ring point as well, this is where additional lanes are needed the most.
Since most highways from one suburb to another are only two lanes it results in too much traffic for the capacity of the road. I've traveled quite a bit over the years and this is something I have seen in a lot of major metropolitan areas.
Did you know that property values are highest where roads are the narrowest?
Roads are narrowest where rich landowners can fight the expansion of the road. You have mixed correlation with causation. Remember, you have to add capacity at the same rate you add load. When you can't do that anymore you have to redistribute the load to where the capacity is available. Houston and Los Angeles are examples of poor load distribution, not failures of capacity.
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.
That is only older diesels that don't have all the emissions requirement and are predominately larger vehicles. I'm sure you will be able to get all the semi drivers to stop using their high torque diesel engines for gas all you have to tell then is mister I don't care that you can't haul half the weight you used to and it costs twice as much in gas because gas engines have no torque.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Ok, you first.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Or they modded it. I've been behind a few modern (2010+) diesel pickup trucks that spew smoke like it's going out of style. I can only assume it's from the owner messing up something in the quest for power.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Why should I have to take my car out of the country to use it???
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.........
I agree, but other studies find differently: Link.
In particular, if you look at the data from the first study, there was basically just no p > .05 for that correlation. Mass transit can be an important part of long-term congestion reduction, but it hasn't worked everywhere. In context, it has worked here, charlotte, NC.
You may think that diesel makes you an environmental superfag
Well, actualy diesel is a superfag. It puts out a lot more smoke than a simple cigarette.
Free Martian Whores!
That conclusion (the thing after 'suggest') is clearly bogus.
If the number of vehicle kilometers remains the same, and the number of people per vehicle increases, then the amount of congestion per person, or per person-mile must be decreased.
It's like they're looking at bigger ovens and saying "they're no hotter than the old small ovens, they can't be more efficient". They're measuring the wrong thing. Person-miles-per-hour good; vehicle-miles dumb.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
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
most people moved to that "outer ring" to get away from the high rise buildings and over population, you want to force that on them?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
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
All EU car makers make good diesel engines now, even Ford sells some very good diesels over here, but of course in the USA fuel superior economy and improved reliability is socialism.
Yet they're still crap. Even the modern ones can be made to spew black smoke, and most of them do so regularly. Filters help, but not enough, and they need high temperatures to clean themselves -- temperatures which the average non-motorway driver never reach.
Also, the fuel economy is mostly a lie. Yes, they go further on each liter/gallon, but the majority of that is because diesel is heavier than gasoline. Try going to spritmonitor.de and calculate the actual CO2 emissions from diesel cars -- they ARE better than gasoline when it comes to CO2, but they are not winning by much.
If you do most of your driving above about 80km/h, diesel is great. However, that is certainly true for less than 48% of the Danish population, yet 48% of all new vehicles sold in Denmark in 2011 were diesel. It is no wonder that Denmark cannot even live up to EU air pollution standards.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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.
Yet they're still crap. Even the modern ones can be made to spew black smoke, and most of them do so regularly. Filters help, but not enough, and they need high temperatures to clean themselves -- temperatures which the average non-motorway driver never reach.
Yes, the NOx and particulate matter are still several times worse for diesel than for petrol, despite stricter regulations. Before Euro 5, the diesel requirements were *much* slacker.
Though apparently the fancy new direct injection petrol engines produce significant amounts of particulate matter, though still less than diesels. A little less greenhouse gas but much more pollution doesn't really seem like a good trade to me.
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.
Depends on the diesel. US diesel is nasty, its much better in the UK.
The US has been on ultra-low-sulphur diesel (spelling in the UK's honour) for quite some time now. And even motor oils have been reformulated for lower emissions. It's super-hard for me to find the excellent Delo 400 any more, now it's all Delo 400 LE which isn't as good but has lower emissions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.'"
Diesel has 11% more BTU's per L than standard gasoline at average temperature and pressure, most diesel models get significantly better than an 11% improvement over their gasoline siblings. Much of this has to do with the fact that the diesel creates so much better torque at low RPM's that the manufacturer can install a smaller, less powerful engine without making the vehicle feel like a complete dog. As an example the 148HP CX5 diesel does 119g/km versus the 160HP gas engine which does 139g/km, an improvement of 16% and the diesel is significantly more fun to drive.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.)
I've been behind a few modern (2010+) diesel pickup trucks that spew smoke like it's going out of style. I can only assume it's from the owner messing up something in the quest for power.
There's about four reasons you might see this. Some diesel catalysts require fuel injection into the catalyst, if the user nails it during this time you can get some noticeable smoke. Another is the driver could be an idiot and have a clogged filter. I have a "filter minder" gauge on my dash (which I added) which tells me when my filter is clogged. Another reason can be the elimination of the filter systems; kits exist to eliminate them. This is generally illegal but some states still don't check the equipment on diesels. The other possible reason is that the owner has deliberately had his vehicle tuned to produce smoke. This is pathetically more common than you would imagine. People only do this for one reason; not just feelings of inadequacy, but indeed they are inadequate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.'"
the fuel economy is mostly a lie.
What is that supposed to mean? Diesels provably get better mileage, and if you drive them carefully, they provide even larger benefits than if you do the same with gasoline. This is because they run lean all the time, by definition.
you do most of your driving above about 80km/h, diesel is great
It has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with load. This is why the tiny diesel engines are the best. I drive a 1982 300SD. It has a 3 liter engine which puts out 120HP, in a 3500lb car. It's fine. It gets 30 mpg on the freeway and if I drive it nicely it gets better than 20 around town. And if I don't shove my foot way into it, it doesn't smoke. It's got over 200,000 miles on it and still runs like mad. I've been restoring it small bit by bit and hope to drive it until I die, so I'll save a whole car's lifetime energy by not buying any more cars, if I succeed. And one day I might even be forced to install a filter on it, which will probably come with some financial incentives.
"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?
In London the concern was the public transport would be too full with Londoners and normal tourists for there to be space for the Olympic spectators, so there was a similar big campaign -- flexible working hours, working from home, cycling instead of using the train, etc.
Special lanes were also made for athlete's buses, and "official vehicles", i.e. any vehicle carrying someone with lots of money.
The result was trains emptier during the day than on a normal evening or night, and various "important" people using trains rather than their official luxury vehicles, as they were faster and more reliable. Also, no normal tourists came to London, no Londoners did touristy things in their own city, and the economy suffered greatly because no one went shopping. There was a last-minute advertising campaign to Londoners telling them (us) not to stay at home after all.
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
What is that supposed to mean? Diesels provably get better mileage, and if you drive them carefully, they provide even larger benefits than if you do the same with gasoline. This is because they run lean all the time, by definition.
Diesel engines are more efficient (less inefficient is perhaps more precise) under partial load than gasoline engines. Gasoline engines are comparatively more sensitive to how you drive. Yes diesels get better mileage, but adjust for fuel density and suddenly the advantage is rather small.
Retrofitted filters do not work. Only proper closed filters have any appreciable effect, and those cannot be retrofitted. But anyway, getting the filter heated is obviously a non-problem when it doesn't exist in the first place.
At 30MPG, hopefully you do not drive very far so mileage is less important.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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.
I agree, as I couldn't Pittsburgh working out well without the mass transit it has now (especially since even with the mass transit traffic is a horrible nightmare at times). I can just imagine how it would be without the buses, trains, etc running and all that.
I just found it odd that the study linked said basically it wouldn't help
Retrofitted filters do not work. Only proper closed filters have any appreciable effect, and those cannot be retrofitted
Why do you imagine that any kind of filter cannot be retrofitted?
At 30MPG, hopefully you do not drive very far so mileage is less important.
That's the best mileage available in an older (and thus affordable to me) car large enough for a person two meters tall to drive around in a town with a lot of potholes. No VW is big enough for me to be comfortable in except maybe a Touareg or however that's spelled. But indeed, I drive as little as possible. My pickup gets maybe 20 MPG tops on the freeway with better tires than I've got now, but that's actually quite good for what it is. I drive that even less.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
If you find the MX-5 on spritmonitor.de and go for the 2012 model, manual drive and compare the 110kW diesel and the 118kW gasoline, you get 8.14l/100km for gasoline (189g CO2/km) and 6.92l/100km for diesel (183g CO2/km). For automatic, it is 9.09l/100km for gasoline (211g CO2/km) and 7.41l/100km for diesel (196g CO2/km).
Now, it is possible that differences between the individual cars can explain the rather modest gain in CO2 emissions -- just 8% for automatic and 3% for stick shift. However, a significant fraction of the diesel versions on spritmonitor.de are FWD only, whereas all the gasoline versions appear to be AWD. I would have expected the diesels to have a significant advantage due to that alone. It is also possible that diesel drivers just drive less efficiently, but again I would expect those to be the ones worrying most about saving money on fuel.
By the way, notice the huge discrepancy between manufacturer-provided values and real-world measurements. The EU standards for fuel efficiency measurements are a joke; I do not know if the US ones are similarly broken.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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
Actually, there's a simpler explanation than that (I'm in Houston where we have perpetual construction and nothing ever gets better).
The people who design the roads can't decide if they are there for people to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, or if they're there to subsidize all the developments. (Built on land that just happened to have been bought by friends and family members in the middle of nowhere dirt cheap just months before a major throughfare was announced, when it's not directly owned by the people building it already).
But that's not really the problem, freeway design is. On one freeway intersection (southbound 59 and 610 on the west side) we have a two lane exit going away from one of the city's major destinations that nobody takes (except as a shortcut to pull ahead of the 1/2 mile line of cars sitting to wait to get into...) and a one-lane exit getting onto 610 towards The Galleria. This lane exit-onlys at some pointless road nobody uses before you reach any of the exits that gets you to The Galleria, leading to everyone slamming on their breaks and trying to get out of the exit-only lane nobody wanted. All over the place you can see exits placed so close to stop lights that people are stopping on freeways for the red light. They didn't do a thing about this for 610's Galleria exits when it was widened (I regularly see entrance ramps blocked by people waiting in line to exit on my morning commute). Here's hoping that when 290 is finished, they will have moved some of these exits back from the lights (here's lookin' at you, W 43rd... yet another entrance ramp to an exit only that regularly backed up past the entrance ramp, trapping everyone trying to get on in the exit only lane. They expanded the exit to TWO lanes, which did speed things up but now people getting on have to fight that much harder to stay on)
But even that's not really the problem. Really, the fundamental problem is that once three million people use the freeway to get where they're going at 60MPH, they're going to sit there and wait while everyone in front of them gets stuck in 30MPH zones, poorly timed lights (because "having the light turn yellow as you approach slows down traffic") and narrow surface streets where granny gets a shitfit and screams for larger traffic humps if someone strange drives by her house.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Most traffic is from ring point to ring point and has been for many years
Now that Houston's growing it's third ring (the Grand Parkway), I guess you can say that with a straight face as long as nobody cares about the fact that none of the points are on the same ring.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
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...
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 additional diesel efficiency is due to the fact that diesels run at a higher compression ratio. That makes their Carnot cycle graph bigger. Diesels still have to be made more sturdy and hence heavier due to the higher pressure.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
Maybe it's because both solutions do not target the real problem: the distance between workplace, home, and other important destinations in your daily life.
If you live in suburbia, you're probably forced to commute every day, and also drive to shopping malls miles away.
Consider the averave New Yorker living in Manhattan (I know, expensive...), and you will probably see a sharp drop in miles traveled because they can walk/cycle to work (or use mass transit), and drop by Bed, Bath & Beyond on their way home.
. . . 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.
Did you know that property values are highest where roads are the narrowest?
By that logic, my parents should be rich with their 40 acre homestead next to the one lane township road... I'll assume you mean property values in cities.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
The very study you cite stated that mass transit did not reduce the number of kilometers traveled by automobiles.
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.
You haven't breathed real diesel until you go to Madagascar. It's like breathing coal dust. I suspect a lot of the third world is a little lax on pollution controls.
"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.
No, it doesn't provide conclusive evidence thereof. Another study I linked elsewhere in the thread did.