Be aware that their range drops much faster when being driven over 65mph than that of gasoline vehicles. And there are lots of highways with speed limits over 65mph.
Fast but legal driving (80mph) reduces an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) car by about 10%. It reduces electric vehicles by about 30%. Range on electric cars goes up when driven slower (not so much on ICE cars).
However- for 95% of car trips are under 20 miles. and even for the longer trips, almost all daily commutes are under 40 miles each way.
While "filling" an electric vehicle is getting faster rapidly, it still takes about 15 minutes + 5 minutes over head vs 1 minute/8 gallons + 5 minutes overhead for ICE cars.
However- every day, electric cars start with a full charge so for most owners, the only time they will need to "fill" a car is on long trips. And on a long trip, you can hook the car up and go in to use the restroom/buy a snack. So for most owners, their experience will be *never* having to stop for gasoline again.
Also-- electric cars do NOT pollute locally. That's 4,000 pounds per year per car of pollution not happening.
And no NO2 which has been shown to measurably increase heart attacks at intersections where it rapidly builds up past safe levels when the wind is still and for the 11% of people who live within 100 meters of roads with heavy traffic.
And no PM10 (10 micron particles) which have been shown to have all kinds of negative effects (cancer, lung disease).
No toulene. No Benzine. No unburnt hydrocarbons.
An electric car *locally* only produces tire dust and 1/10th to 1/20th as much brake dust (most braking is regenerative and doesn't use the pads).
Pollution produced to generate electricity is localized to one power plant- where it can be filtered, captured, and scrubbed. Pollution used to specifically produce electric cars happens at a few rare earth mines. Highly localized. Pollution to make the metal frame and plastic parts would have occurred for an ICE car anyway so that's a wash.
---
So electric cars do not fit long distance trips over 65mph well. It might be 2024 before improving battery capacity and recharging times are at useful levels.
"I just want reasonable health care costs. The US spends 17% of GDP on health care, which is more than nations with socialized health care pay. We are paying enough that everyone should get health care, but our in system a lot of that money goes to administration, profit margins, etc. A single-payer system is superior."
Do they run on promises of lower taxes and fewer government handouts?
Is blatant (and stupid) hypocrisy worse than merely being wrong about your projections?
Especially when, unexpectedly, a dozen states do everything they can to sabotage health care for their own citizens, raising the costs and lowering the savings?
And did this conversation have *anything* to do with the ACA (which 84% of americans preferred over every single proposal the republicans came up with).
There is growing evidence of a distinct set of freshly-emitted air pollutants downwind from major highways, motorways, and freeways that include elevated levels of ultrafine particulates (UFP), black carbon (BC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). People living or otherwise spending substantial time within about 200 m of highways are exposed to these pollutants more so than persons living at a greater distance, even compared to living on busy urban streets. Evidence of the health hazards of these pollutants arises from studies that assess proximity to highways, actual exposure to the pollutants, or both. Taken as a whole, the health studies show elevated risk for development of asthma and reduced lung function in children who live near major highways. Studies of particulate matter (PM) that show associations with cardiac and pulmonary mortality also appear to indicate increasing risk as smaller geographic areas are studied, suggesting localized sources that likely include major highways. Although less work has tested the association between lung cancer and highways, the existing studies suggest an association as well. While the evidence is substantial for a link between near-highway exposures and adverse health outcomes, considerable work remains to understand the exact nature and magnitude of the risks.
Background
Approximately 11% of US households are located within 100 meters of 4-lane highways [estimated using: [1,2]]. While it is clear that automobiles are significant sources of air pollution, the exposure of near-highway residents to pollutants in automobile exhaust has only recently begun to be characterized. There are two main reasons for this: (A) federal and state air monitoring programs are typically set up to measure pollutants at the regional, not local scale; and (B) regional monitoring stations typically do not measure all of the types of pollutants that are elevated next to highways. It is, therefore, critical to ask what is known about near-highway exposures and their possible health consequences.... (see more-- follow link)
And the decline in *local* pollution is something I just thought of in the parent post. I had never seen anyone else bring it up. It's a concept that needs to be spread (and used every time someone brings up electric car pollution in an argument.
Anonymous parent tried to say the nitrogen was harmless...
Soooo...
In atmospheric chemistry, NOx is a generic term for the nitrogen oxides that are most relevant for air pollution, namely nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).[1][2] These gases contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain, as well as tropospheric ozone.
NOx gases are usually produced from the reaction among nitrogen and oxygen during combustion of fuels, such as hydrocarbons, in air; especially at high temperatures, such as occur in car engines.[1][2][3] In areas of high motor vehicle traffic, such as in large cities, the nitrogen oxides emitted can be a significant source of air pollution. NOx gases are also produced naturally by lightning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So 3 million pounds of extra nitrogen not being introduced to the local environment will be a good thing.
And the point that electric cars will not be producing 4 million pounds of pollutants per 1 million cars is still true.
In both cases, it was human failure to recognize danger which made nuclear power unsafe.
The only safe nuclear power is completely automated nuclear power. And probably small scale (5,000 houses).
Plus while solar converts incoming energy to power, nuclear releases stored stored power so it's going to increase the heat in the system faster. Also, nucleer power still has little leaks and releases- increasing radioactivity in the environment over time.
I'm not a big fan of Nuclear Energy + Idiot Cost Saving, Risk Ignoring Humans.
But your number is grossly overstated.
From Chernobyl... 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.
4056 deaths is no where near 1 million deaths.
And some of those cancers will only cost people a year or two of their lives (old people).
But solar, wind, etc. are better already and getting better every day. And when a wind tower falls over, it doesn't render 525 square miles of prime real estate uninhabitable for 300-600 years. -- She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So I was watching boardwalk empire and saw that basically they took grain alcohol (you may know it as everclear) and mixed ingrediants like......
vanilla and water for rum. water and a little sugar for vodka. liquid smoke, amber coloring for whiskey.
So I did some experimenting (having had a couple dozen whiskeys including the expensive stuff).
It wasn't whiskey- but if you hadn't had whiskey for a few years, it was sorta in the neighborhood. I'm wondering if filtering the water thru some peat moss and then boiling it and filtering it thru a coffee filter would be more whiskey like.
Bonus tip- most top shelf vodka has up to 2% sugar added. You can't taste it but it smooths it out.
I've also done the brita thing and the activated charcoal thing for bottom shelf spirits. They don't produce top shelf products but they do improve them- and in mixed drinks (many created to hid the flavor of bad booze), they are okay.
Personally, The Balvenie is the one I like best for the price followed by The Singleton. The various Glen 18's are all pretty nice but $$$ (Glenfiddich) and more for sipping for taste than drinking.
I'm not a big fan of Nuclear Energy + Idiot Cost Saving, Risk Ignoring Humans.
But your number is grossly overstated.
From Chernobyl... 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.
4056 deaths is no where near 1 million deaths.
And some of those cancers will only cost people a year or two of their lives (old people).
But solar, wind, etc. are better already and getting better every day. And when a wind tower falls over, it doesn't render 525 square miles of prime real estate uninhabitable for 300-600 years.
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles emit pollution that weighs roughly as much as the vehicle- every single year.
Electric cars emit tire rubber dust (same as ICE) and brake dust (but only 1/10th as much).
That's it. No micro particulates, no unburnt hydrocarbons, no leaing fluids, no CO2, CO, or Sulphur.
Any pollution created by the cars manufacture is going to be highly localized, containable, and filterable.
Any pollution created by electrical generation is going to be highly localized, containable, and filterable (even coal).
If your town has 1 million ICE vehicles in it on a given day, replacing them would remove 4 billion pounds of pollution per year from your town.
That's going to help many over 65, and anyone with breathing problems, probably cut cancer noticeably due to the reduction of PM10 combustion emissions.
I hear the point you are trying to make and there some validity to it if the study is suspect.
But consider this.
Any pollution associated with wind or solar or electricity generation is going to be highly localized. And it's going to be in one place - easier to scrub, filter, and contain.
The only pollution from an electric vehicle going down the road is rubber from the tires (same as other vehicles) and brakes (which is about 1/10th as much due to regenerative braking.
By comparison, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles emits their own weight in pollutants into the atmosphere each year. Source: OHIO EPA.
The following pollutants are in car exhaust: (If you skip to the bottom, you'll see PM10's are a huge threat from ICE vehicles.
Pollutants from Car Exhaust
CO2 â" carbon dioxide. This gas is naturally present in the atmosphere at low concentration (approximately 0.035%). It absorbs infrared energy and is thus a greenhouse gas (a contributor to global warming). Concentrations of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere appear to be increasing. This could have a substantial effect on the climate. The internal combustion engine contributes to the increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of carbon dioxide, however, is felt worldwide. It does not have a great impact on the immediate urban environment2. Nor are car engines the greatest producers of this pollutant.
CO â" carbon monoxide. The main source of CO in cities is the internal combustion engine, where it is produced by incomplete combustion. Anthropogenic sources account for approximately 6% of the 0.1 ppm concentration of CO in the earth's atmosphere globally. In an urban area, the concentration (and the percentage anthropogenic contribution) can be much higher. During a city rush hour, for example, concentrations of CO can reach 50 or even 100 ppm, which greatly exceeds the safe level. CO is highly toxic: it binds to haemoglobin more strongly than oxygen does, thus reducing the capacity of the haemoglobin to carry oxygen to the cells of the body. CO also has the nasty habit of sticking to haemoglobin and not coming off. This means that a fairly small amount of it can do a lot of damage.
CO can be oxidised to the far less harmful CO2 if there is enough O2 available. At higher air-fuel ratios the level of CO emission goes down. The fuel has undergone complete, or more nearly complete, combustion. CO can also be oxidised to CO2 in a catalytic convertor.
NOx â" oxides of nitrogen. While some nitrogen may be present in the fuel (as mentioned earlier), most oxides of nitrogen are produced when elemental nitrogen (N2) in the air3 is broken down and oxidised at high temperatures (approximately 1000 K or greater) and pressures within the internal combustion engine. Nitrogen monoxide (NO) is produced in higher concentration than nitrogen dioxide (NO2) but the two species are in any case interconvertible by means of photochemical interactions. Other oxides of nitrogen, such as N2O4, may occur; but are more rare. Because hydrocarbons compete with nitrogen for oxygen, NO is formed to a greater extent in cars with a 'lean mixture', that is, a low fuel-air ratio.
NO and NO2 are toxic species. Oxides of nitrogen also play a major role in the formation of photochemical smog, which is discussed below.
HC â" hydrocarbons. 'Much of the hydrocarbon fuel passes through the process unconsumed and is expelled into the atmosphere along with other exhaust fumes'. This remark was made earlier in passing. Fuel close to the wall of the combustion chamber may be quenched by the relative coolness of that area and not be burned. If the engine is poorly designed or is not in proper working order the proportion of unburned fuel rises. Hydrocarbons are also released to the atmosphere by evaporation from fuel tanks. Hydrocarbons can be dangerous to human health and are also part of the makeup and cause of photochemical smog, which is discussed below.
In 1981, 8 percent of bankruptcy filing were for medical reasons. By 2009, just before the ACA was passed, 62.1% percent of bankruptcy filing were for medical reasons. (American Journal of Medicine)
Medical bankruptcy appears to be back down to 30% as of 2016. If the ACA is repealed, that's expected to quickly return to and then exceed 60% levels again. Additionally, under the House plan 27,000 more americans would die per year each year going forward for the next 10 years. Under the Senate plan only 22,000 more americans would die per year each year for the next 10 years. That's going to bring up the adult mortality (and probably the infant mortality) rates quite a bit.
About 15% of Canadians had medical bankruptcy's the same year.
---
The age ranges most often bankrupted by medical bills are 35-44 (29%). Followed by 44-55 (27%) and 25-34 (19%).
I personally know a 34 year old who was forced to get insurance by the ACA who was bitter that she didn't need it and then three months later had a car accident with $90,000 (and counting) medical bills. Her cut under her ACA insurance?- about $4000. Without it, she would have a) not had a lot of therapy she needed (and have ended up permanently crippled like another person I knew years ago who had a car accident without insurance) and she still would have had over $40,000 in medical bills (ambulance, ICU for a couple days, then hospital for a couple days.
Slashdot Mirror
Just so you know.. based on the Xerox ruling I agree with you.
But I havn't met one of those idiots yet. And the company has aggressively defended it's trademark.
And the guy trying to violate their trademark seems scummy to me.
No no.. you missed the metaphor...
Humans are not buggy whip makers. They are horses.
And amazon is well down the road towards developing robots that pack things and put them on shelves.
Buggy whips were not replaced by electrically powered artificial humans who cost less than $40,000 per year per shift.
And that's correct usage among all the cases I've seen.
No one says, "I'm going to google that with SIRI".
No one says, "I'm going to google that with Bing"
When they say they are going to google something, they mean they are going to use google to search the internet.
Partially, this is because there is a particular quality to google results which other search engines lack.
And they don't say, "Let me google that. Hey Siri, "When is the eclipse?" "
And that's correct usage among all the cases I've seen.
No one says, "I'm going to google that with SIRI".
No one says, "I'm going to google taht with Bing"
When they say they are going to google something, they mean they are going to use google to search the internet.
Partially, this is because there is a particular quality to google results which other search engines lack.
Pray I don't alter it any further...
Be aware that their range drops much faster when being driven over 65mph than that of gasoline vehicles. And there are lots of highways with speed limits over 65mph.
Fast but legal driving (80mph) reduces an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) car by about 10%. It reduces electric vehicles by about 30%. Range on electric cars goes up when driven slower (not so much on ICE cars).
However- for 95% of car trips are under 20 miles. and even for the longer trips, almost all daily commutes are under 40 miles each way.
While "filling" an electric vehicle is getting faster rapidly, it still takes about 15 minutes + 5 minutes over head vs 1 minute/8 gallons + 5 minutes overhead for ICE cars.
However- every day, electric cars start with a full charge so for most owners, the only time they will need to "fill" a car is on long trips. And on a long trip, you can hook the car up and go in to use the restroom/buy a snack. So for most owners, their experience will be *never* having to stop for gasoline again.
Also-- electric cars do NOT pollute locally. That's 4,000 pounds per year per car of pollution not happening.
And no NO2 which has been shown to measurably increase heart attacks at intersections where it rapidly builds up past safe levels when the wind is still and for the 11% of people who live within 100 meters of roads with heavy traffic.
And no PM10 (10 micron particles) which have been shown to have all kinds of negative effects (cancer, lung disease).
No toulene. No Benzine. No unburnt hydrocarbons.
An electric car *locally* only produces tire dust and 1/10th to 1/20th as much brake dust (most braking is regenerative and doesn't use the pads).
Pollution produced to generate electricity is localized to one power plant- where it can be filtered, captured, and scrubbed.
Pollution used to specifically produce electric cars happens at a few rare earth mines. Highly localized. Pollution to make the metal frame and plastic parts would have occurred for an ICE car anyway so that's a wash.
---
So electric cars do not fit long distance trips over 65mph well. It might be 2024 before improving battery capacity and recharging times are at useful levels.
Anonymous coward wrote:
"I just want reasonable health care costs. The US spends 17% of GDP on health care, which is more than nations with socialized health care pay. We are paying enough that everyone should get health care, but our in system a lot of that money goes to administration, profit margins, etc. A single-payer system is superior."
If someone wants to mod them up.
Is the wisconsin government republican
Do they run on promises of lower taxes and fewer government handouts?
Is blatant (and stupid) hypocrisy worse than merely being wrong about your projections?
Especially when, unexpectedly, a dozen states do everything they can to sabotage health care for their own citizens, raising the costs and lowering the savings?
And did this conversation have *anything* to do with the ACA (which 84% of americans preferred over every single proposal the republicans came up with).
Yea,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Abstract
There is growing evidence of a distinct set of freshly-emitted air pollutants downwind from major highways, motorways, and freeways that include elevated levels of ultrafine particulates (UFP), black carbon (BC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). People living or otherwise spending substantial time within about 200 m of highways are exposed to these pollutants more so than persons living at a greater distance, even compared to living on busy urban streets. Evidence of the health hazards of these pollutants arises from studies that assess proximity to highways, actual exposure to the pollutants, or both. Taken as a whole, the health studies show elevated risk for development of asthma and reduced lung function in children who live near major highways. Studies of particulate matter (PM) that show associations with cardiac and pulmonary mortality also appear to indicate increasing risk as smaller geographic areas are studied, suggesting localized sources that likely include major highways. Although less work has tested the association between lung cancer and highways, the existing studies suggest an association as well. While the evidence is substantial for a link between near-highway exposures and adverse health outcomes, considerable work remains to understand the exact nature and magnitude of the risks.
Background
Approximately 11% of US households are located within 100 meters of 4-lane highways [estimated using: [1,2]]. While it is clear that automobiles are significant sources of air pollution, the exposure of near-highway residents to pollutants in automobile exhaust has only recently begun to be characterized. There are two main reasons for this: (A) federal and state air monitoring programs are typically set up to measure pollutants at the regional, not local scale; and (B) regional monitoring stations typically do not measure all of the types of pollutants that are elevated next to highways. It is, therefore, critical to ask what is known about near-highway exposures and their possible health consequences. ...
(see more-- follow link)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
----
And the decline in *local* pollution is something I just thought of in the parent post. I had never seen anyone else bring it up. It's a concept that needs to be spread (and used every time someone brings up electric car pollution in an argument.
Anonymous parent tried to say the nitrogen was harmless... Soooo... In atmospheric chemistry, NOx is a generic term for the nitrogen oxides that are most relevant for air pollution, namely nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).[1][2] These gases contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain, as well as tropospheric ozone.
NOx gases are usually produced from the reaction among nitrogen and oxygen during combustion of fuels, such as hydrocarbons, in air; especially at high temperatures, such as occur in car engines.[1][2][3] In areas of high motor vehicle traffic, such as in large cities, the nitrogen oxides emitted can be a significant source of air pollution. NOx gases are also produced naturally by lightning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... So 3 million pounds of extra nitrogen not being introduced to the local environment will be a good thing. And the point that electric cars will not be producing 4 million pounds of pollutants per 1 million cars is still true.
In both cases, it was human failure to recognize danger which made nuclear power unsafe.
The only safe nuclear power is completely automated nuclear power. And probably small scale (5,000 houses).
Plus while solar converts incoming energy to power, nuclear releases stored stored power so it's going to increase the heat in the system faster. Also, nucleer power still has little leaks and releases- increasing radioactivity in the environment over time.
Ahem... as I said..
I'm not a big fan of Nuclear Energy + Idiot Cost Saving, Risk Ignoring Humans.
But your number is grossly overstated.
From Chernobyl... 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.
4056 deaths is no where near 1 million deaths.
And some of those cancers will only cost people a year or two of their lives (old people).
But solar, wind, etc. are better already and getting better every day. And when a wind tower falls over, it doesn't render 525 square miles of prime real estate uninhabitable for 300-600 years.
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
*could* *could* *could* reach 4,000 deaths.
The publications quoting a million are all fairly extreme, small, and disputed.
So I was watching boardwalk empire and saw that basically they took grain alcohol (you may know it as everclear) and mixed ingrediants like... ...
vanilla and water for rum.
water and a little sugar for vodka.
liquid smoke, amber coloring for whiskey.
So I did some experimenting (having had a couple dozen whiskeys including the expensive stuff).
It wasn't whiskey- but if you hadn't had whiskey for a few years, it was sorta in the neighborhood. I'm wondering if filtering the water thru some peat moss and then boiling it and filtering it thru a coffee filter would be more whiskey like.
Bonus tip- most top shelf vodka has up to 2% sugar added. You can't taste it but it smooths it out.
I've also done the brita thing and the activated charcoal thing for bottom shelf spirits. They don't produce top shelf products but they do improve them- and in mixed drinks (many created to hid the flavor of bad booze), they are okay.
Personally, The Balvenie is the one I like best for the price followed by The Singleton. The various Glen 18's are all pretty nice but $$$ (Glenfiddich) and more for sipping for taste than drinking.
I'm not a big fan of Nuclear Energy + Idiot Cost Saving, Risk Ignoring Humans.
But your number is grossly overstated.
From Chernobyl... 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.
4056 deaths is no where near 1 million deaths.
And some of those cancers will only cost people a year or two of their lives (old people).
But solar, wind, etc. are better already and getting better every day. And when a wind tower falls over, it doesn't render 525 square miles of prime real estate uninhabitable for 300-600 years.
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles emit pollution that weighs roughly as much as the vehicle- every single year.
Electric cars emit tire rubber dust (same as ICE) and brake dust (but only 1/10th as much).
That's it. No micro particulates, no unburnt hydrocarbons, no leaing fluids, no CO2, CO, or Sulphur.
Any pollution created by the cars manufacture is going to be highly localized, containable, and filterable.
Any pollution created by electrical generation is going to be highly localized, containable, and filterable (even coal).
If your town has 1 million ICE vehicles in it on a given day, replacing them would remove 4 billion pounds of pollution per year from your town.
That's going to help many over 65, and anyone with breathing problems, probably cut cancer noticeably due to the reduction of PM10 combustion emissions.
I hear the point you are trying to make and there some validity to it if the study is suspect.
But consider this.
Any pollution associated with wind or solar or electricity generation is going to be highly localized. And it's going to be in one place - easier to scrub, filter, and contain.
The only pollution from an electric vehicle going down the road is rubber from the tires (same as other vehicles) and brakes (which is about 1/10th as much due to regenerative braking.
By comparison, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles emits their own weight in pollutants into the atmosphere each year.
Source: OHIO EPA.
The following pollutants are in car exhaust:
(If you skip to the bottom, you'll see PM10's are a huge threat from ICE vehicles.
Pollutants from Car Exhaust
CO2 â" carbon dioxide. This gas is naturally present in the atmosphere at low concentration (approximately 0.035%). It absorbs infrared energy and is thus a greenhouse gas (a contributor to global warming). Concentrations of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere appear to be increasing. This could have a substantial effect on the climate. The internal combustion engine contributes to the increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of carbon dioxide, however, is felt worldwide. It does not have a great impact on the immediate urban environment2. Nor are car engines the greatest producers of this pollutant.
CO â" carbon monoxide. The main source of CO in cities is the internal combustion engine, where it is produced by incomplete combustion. Anthropogenic sources account for approximately 6% of the 0.1 ppm concentration of CO in the earth's atmosphere globally. In an urban area, the concentration (and the percentage anthropogenic contribution) can be much higher. During a city rush hour, for example, concentrations of CO can reach 50 or even 100 ppm, which greatly exceeds the safe level. CO is highly toxic: it binds to haemoglobin more strongly than oxygen does, thus reducing the capacity of the haemoglobin to carry oxygen to the cells of the body. CO also has the nasty habit of sticking to haemoglobin and not coming off. This means that a fairly small amount of it can do a lot of damage.
CO can be oxidised to the far less harmful CO2 if there is enough O2 available. At higher air-fuel ratios the level of CO emission goes down. The fuel has undergone complete, or more nearly complete, combustion. CO can also be oxidised to CO2 in a catalytic convertor.
NOx â" oxides of nitrogen. While some nitrogen may be present in the fuel (as mentioned earlier), most oxides of nitrogen are produced when elemental nitrogen (N2) in the air3 is broken down and oxidised at high temperatures (approximately 1000 K or greater) and pressures within the internal combustion engine. Nitrogen monoxide (NO) is produced in higher concentration than nitrogen dioxide (NO2) but the two species are in any case interconvertible by means of photochemical interactions. Other oxides of nitrogen, such as N2O4, may occur; but are more rare. Because hydrocarbons compete with nitrogen for oxygen, NO is formed to a greater extent in cars with a 'lean mixture', that is, a low fuel-air ratio.
NO and NO2 are toxic species. Oxides of nitrogen also play a major role in the formation of photochemical smog, which is discussed below.
HC â" hydrocarbons. 'Much of the hydrocarbon fuel passes through the process unconsumed and is expelled into the atmosphere along with other exhaust fumes'. This remark was made earlier in passing. Fuel close to the wall of the combustion chamber may be quenched by the relative coolness of that area and not be burned. If the engine is poorly designed or is not in proper working order the proportion of unburned fuel rises. Hydrocarbons are also released to the atmosphere by evaporation from fuel tanks. Hydrocarbons can be dangerous to human health and are also part of the makeup and cause of photochemical smog, which is discussed below.
C6H6 â" Benzene and its
I don't know... 120 million adults, 120 million seniors.
If the odds are 1:1,000,000 it happens roughly twice a year.
If the odds are 1:10,000,000 it happens roughly twice a decade.
Now you've heard of it.
It must be popular!
I certainly won't be following disney content to a separate monthly charge.
In 1981, 8 percent of bankruptcy filing were for medical reasons.
By 2009, just before the ACA was passed, 62.1% percent of bankruptcy filing were for medical reasons. (American Journal of Medicine)
Medical bankruptcy appears to be back down to 30% as of 2016. If the ACA is repealed, that's expected to quickly return to and then exceed 60% levels again. Additionally, under the House plan 27,000 more americans would die per year each year going forward for the next 10 years. Under the Senate plan only 22,000 more americans would die per year each year for the next 10 years. That's going to bring up the adult mortality (and probably the infant mortality) rates quite a bit.
About 15% of Canadians had medical bankruptcy's the same year.
---
The age ranges most often bankrupted by medical bills are 35-44 (29%). Followed by 44-55 (27%) and 25-34 (19%).
I personally know a 34 year old who was forced to get insurance by the ACA who was bitter that she didn't need it and then three months later had a car accident with $90,000 (and counting) medical bills. Her cut under her ACA insurance?- about $4000. Without it, she would have a) not had a lot of therapy she needed (and have ended up permanently crippled like another person I knew years ago who had a car accident without insurance) and she still would have had over $40,000 in medical bills (ambulance, ICU for a couple days, then hospital for a couple days.
The U.S. is the best health care in the world ...for about the richest 2% of the population.
For the rest of us, it's so bad that we have shorter adult lifespans and higher infant mortality rates.
I got a fungus that only a new drug could kill about 8 years ago. Even with the new drug it took over three years to completely kill it.
It just wasn't worth the risk of going to a health club and using their wet areas any more.
Smaller clubs have fewer members, dryer equipment, and are under $15 a month.
But it still worries me how resistant the stuff was.