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!
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
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!
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
..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.
Sure, many Chinese and Indians are becoming "middle class" and thus can purchase automobiles.
But, like Europeans (in contrast to Americans) , these societies are also embracing real, workable, and efficient public transportation.
Just because you can't pry a fat American out of a car even to walk a block or two, doesn't mean that's how most of the world's population approaches transportation.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.........
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Fastest growing can be misleading: https://xkcd.com/1102/
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.
I'm down for some Death by Crushed Pelvis!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
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.
How behind the times are you? Modern diesels are far less polluting than the diesels of old. With common rail injection, ultra-low sulphur diesel and particulate scrubbers, they are pretty damn clean. Couple that with lower fuel consumption they can, for example, put out less CO2 per mile than gasoline.
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.
Dear god, why not leave your naked prejudice inside before it leaves your hands? I promise I might take you a little more seriously if you can stop hating people just because of their lifestyle.
If Americans were still fat, but used all electric cars instead of public transportation, would you still hate them so much? Oh wait, I shouldn't ask, you'll probably just find another reason to hate them.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
The average American one way car commute is 23 minutes the average one way public transit commute is 53. Only in large cities is the car commute longer and public transit commute shorter. The US unlike many European countries is far less dense making public transportation unsustainable in many of its cities. If buses were forced to make stops within a half mile of all places of employment they would be a serious contributor to pollution as they would be running empty the majority of the time.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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!
I think the problem is more related to the use of catalytic converters and 4 stroke engines rather than public transportation.
The important thing to note is that they're approaching "middle class" status. Generally, as income rises, so does pollution, but only to a certain level. Eventually, the middle class can afford things like catylitic converters for their cars and better enginges and pollution starts to decline. California, for example, has twice as many cars as they did 30 years ago, but better air quality thanks to better emissions control on new vehicles.
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
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
Give me much better gas mileage per volume of fuel, which means I can drive the same distance and produce less pollution. Environmentally conscious Europe now sells about 50% of new cars as diesel.
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'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.'"
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.
Only cowards buy health insurance.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate