13 MILLION STINKING USA DIESELS

http://www.theautochannel.com/F/news/2007/02/28/038573.html http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2843908120070228
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2007 -- Diesel fumes pose a major health risk to
commuters, according to a new report by the non-profit Clean Air Task Force. The Boston-based environmental research group reported today that even though we spend only a tiny portion of our day commuting, it's during the commute that we receive more than half our overall exposure to deadly fine particle pollution. "Exposure to diesel exhaust during commutes poses a serious public health risk that needs to be addressed," said George Thurston, Professor of Environmental Medicine at New York University's School of Medicine, who wrote the foreword to the report. Fine particle pollution, including diesel exhaust, can cause lung cancer, stroke, heart attack and infant death. It also triggers asthma attacks and makes people more likely to become allergic. Some health researchers have estimated that such fine particles are responsible for shortening the lives of at least 70,000 Americans each year. The Task Force specifically investigated diesel exhaust levels during commutes in New York, NY; Boston, MA; Austin, TX and Columbus, OH. The Task Force documented diesel particle levels four to eight times higher inside commuter cars, buses, and trains than in the ambient outdoor air in those cities. These are examples of likely results during a commute anywhere in the country where there is significant diesel traffic. "Our investigation demonstrated that you may be exposed to high levels of diesel particles -- four to eight times the levels in the outdoor air -- whether you commute by car, bus, ferry, train, or on foot," said Bruce Hill, Senior Scientist with CATF. By contrast, Hill noted, pollution levels were negligible for commuters in and near vehicles equipped with modern pollution controls or those that run on lower polluting fuels such as natural gas. "The problem is that there are 13 million diesel engines in service today, and virtually all are exempt from modern pollution controls," said Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director for the Task Force. "However, our study showed that simply replacing the muffler of trucks or buses with a diesel particle filter can reduce commuter exposure substantially," he said. By EPA regulation, the Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel that is necessary to keep these diesel particle filters operating optimally became available nationwide late last year. The Task Force called on federal and state agencies to increase funding to clean up highly polluting buses and other existing diesel engines. It urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require that long-haul trucks clean up when their engines are rebuilt. It also urged the EPA to move ahead with plans to set new pollution standards for diesel trains and diesel-powered boats, including commuter ferries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2843908120070228 http://www.theautochannel.com/F/news/2007/02/28/038573.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2007 -- Diesel fumes pose a major health risk to commuters, according to a new report by the non-profit Clean Air Task Force. The Boston-based environmental research group reported today that even though we spend only a tiny portion of our day commuting, it's during the commute that we receive more than half our overall exposure to deadly fine particle pollution. "Exposure to diesel exhaust during commutes poses a serious public health risk that needs to be addressed," said George Thurston, Professor of Environmental Medicine at New York University's School of Medicine, who wrote the foreword to the report. Fine particle pollution, including diesel exhaust, can cause lung cancer, stroke, heart attack and infant death. It also triggers asthma attacks and makes people more likely to become allergic. Some health researchers have estimated that such fine particles are responsible for shortening the lives of at least 70,000 Americans each year. The Task Force specifically investigated diesel exhaust levels during commutes in New York, NY; Boston, MA; Austin, TX and Columbus, OH. The Task Force documented diesel particle levels four to eight times higher inside commuter cars, buses, and trains than in the ambient outdoor air in those cities. These are examples of likely results during a commute anywhere in the country where there is significant diesel traffic. "Our investigation demonstrated that you may be exposed to high levels of diesel particles -- four to eight times the levels in the outdoor air -- whether you commute by car, bus, ferry, train, or on foot," said Bruce Hill, Senior Scientist with CATF. By contrast, Hill noted, pollution levels were negligible for commuters in and near vehicles equipped with modern pollution controls or those that run on lower polluting fuels such as natural gas. "The problem is that there are 13 million diesel engines in service today, and virtually all are exempt from modern pollution controls," said Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director for the Task Force. "However, our study showed that simply replacing the muffler of trucks or buses with a diesel particle filter can reduce commuter exposure substantially," he said. By EPA regulation, the Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel that is necessary to keep these diesel particle filters operating optimally became available nationwide late last year. The Task Force called on federal and state agencies to increase funding to clean up highly polluting buses and other existing diesel engines. It urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require that long-haul trucks clean up when their engines are rebuilt. It also urged the EPA to move ahead with plans to set new pollution standards for diesel trains and diesel-powered boats, including commuter ferries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't think the small number of European diesel cars on the road make much of a contribution compared to the number of large displacement diesels in service. How much can my 1600cc VW diesel contribute, at 48 MPG and 20 gallons per month, or my 3 liter Benz?
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's visible coming out of your pipe, fancy tests aren't needed.
However the new diesels using the new (in NA) much cleaner diesel fuel may do the trick to make diesel's more acceptable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clearly you don't know much about electronic controls on diesels, nor do you know much about modern diesel engines.
And as far as "stink" goes, I'd bet that if we put you in an gasoline fume free environment for a few hours, you'd smell those again as well. I'd venture a guess and say that the smell of gasoline burning engines is so prevalent that we as a population sumply don't notice it that much anymore. Sad really.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I hope you mean with "new (NA)" that this ULSD is new in NA but has been used in Europe for many many years (in many European countries as the only available diesel fuel quality).
Considering particles, then it may be correct to follow visual symptoms but that may not always be the right conclusion. Could be that you actually cannot see those particles that are really a health issue.
Probably would be OK to dumb those 13 million US cars and replace those and another 50 million with modern diesel cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the UK we pay road tax based on the cars emmissions. My E220 CDI is in a lower band than my old C180K even though it is a bit faster and a bit bigger. The emmissions mist be lower. My SLK350 is still not even in the top band for road tax. These German cars are as clean and efficient as possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

Supercharged vehicles don't do well in the Co2 tests though.
Personally I think that diesel engines should be taxed significantly higher than petrol engines, I don't like diesel fumes, I don't like the clouds of black smoke that come out of turbo diesels when the turbo spins up on gently driven ones, I don't like the smelly, nasty and dangeously slippy fuel that is spilt all over garage forecourts and roundabouts, I don't like the noise from diesel engines, or to drive them with their narrow torque band and I don't like the way that lots of "company car" diesels are driven by complete muppets who drive exceptionally badly as if to say "This car might be diesel but I can drive dangerously enough to prove it's as quick as a petrol engined one".
--
Pete M - Using the Scouse Side of the Force -
Golf GTi,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
greek_philosophizer wrote:

"> The report opines that: "Our investigation demonstrated that you may be exposed to high levels

So what. Have they demonstrated that a four fold to eight fold increase actually means something. I see no proof (in this article) that there is a problem here. EJ in NJ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
greek_philosophizer wrote:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
--
.boB
2006 FXDI hot rod
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I hate to be the one to bring this to your attention, but everyone is going to DIE even if they live in an environmentally controlled padded room. People should be worrying about the wackos in the Middle East and Korea, they are much more likely to kill you and much sooner than "fine particles"!
Grow up and stop being used by the "We'll save you, Control Police"!
Bruce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wow, that took me awhile. I was trying to think, well. Depleted Euranium, but what's the middle name?
--

Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Highcountry wrote:

Forget the wackos in the Middle East and Korea, we've got the very worst wackos in Washington!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vlad the Impaler wrote:
> Forget the wackos in the Middle East and Korea, we've got the very worst > wackos in Washington!
Oh boy! Another live one from the "good is evil and evil is good" club.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Mar 2007 01:21:50 -0800, "greek_philosophizer"

Diesel or not, you are probably exposed to four to eight times the pollution from engines when you are on the road, compared with the air away from the road.

Of course, old engines should be updated with the new filters but some one got paid to write this thing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.