Modern high pressure diesels without a dpf are lethal to everyone around them. If you follow a car without a dpf fitted your car will quickly become a gas chamber that will poison you. You cannot keep these unseen particulates out of your car. You will breath them in. Pedestrians also breath in this poison. Your cars internal filtration system will not take out the harmful particulates (that cannot be seen) that will get into the cabin for you and your passengers to breath in. After that your lungs become impregnated with the particulates and they stay there for life. Some of them get into your blood stream where they cause problems with your brain, heart and kidneys, also the lungs. You can look forward to cancer, heart disease and strokes plus many other serious diseases (as per the recent BBC programs about diesel particulates and the damage they do). That's why there is a law to say you have to have one fitted and you cannot deviate legally from the standard setup. Yes, I know some people argue it's legal. It is not. You can check with the dot and they will tell you. From 2016 the gas analyser will come into play for a diesel to pass the MOT. It must not emit nano particulate above a certain level. New equipmenet will be used. Non dpf cars spray particulates everywhere and you cannot see them. It has little to do with the amount of smoke emitted. Non dpf cars will fail and there may be penalties for owners but as yet I've not been told what they will be. Roadside checks are to be introduced too to catch offenders who will then, I hope face criminal prosecution. Amazes me how irresponsible some individual are. Sorry if this offends but I like my air clean for me and my family. Don't you?

This is NONSENSE. Absolute NONSENSE. If the particulates really were LETHAL we'd all be dead as the particulates are the same from ALL diesels. The particulates are a pre-disposing factor to various health conditions but they are not, in themselves, in any way LETHAL.

A cigarette is genuinely dangerous. A cream bun habit will kill you far faster than particulates. Drinking too much will kill you eventually. If you REALLY liked clean air you wouldn't drive at all.

If you really want to campaign on something can I suggest you start on something that actually kills people. Like smoking, drinking, drink driving, obesity, children playing in the streets, riding bicycles without lights on. Speeding in built-up areas. Driving children a couple of miles to school instead of walking, cycling or taking public transport?

YOU WILL DIE. We all will. We all have a choice as to how we live life. I'm enjoying my freedom while I can. I suggest you do too.

But you can't say that ! You will offend people like those Toyota Pruis drivers They actually think that MAKING the car is positively good for the environment and its saving the whales and the birds and the bees too, please don't burst their tiny little bubble

 

Never a truer word said...." If you REALLY liked clean air you wouldn't drive at all." lol

Why am I transparent? Why was there need for that pointless remark? It was merely what I had read. I didnt state it was fact

 

I agree and oppologise, now enough of the politics please, i should never have mentioned it here.

This is NONSENSE. Absolute NONSENSE. If the particulates really were LETHAL we'd all be dead as the particulates are the same from ALL diesels. The particulates are a pre-disposing factor to various health conditions but they are not, in themselves, in any way LETHAL.

A cigarette is genuinely dangerous. A cream bun habit will kill you far faster than particulates. Drinking too much will kill you eventually. If you REALLY liked clean air you wouldn't drive at all.

If you really want to campaign on something can I suggest you start on something that actually kills people. Like smoking, drinking, drink driving, obesity, children playing in the streets, riding bicycles without lights on. Speeding in built-up areas. Driving children a couple of miles to school instead of walking, cycling or taking public transport?

YOU WILL DIE. We all will. We all have a choice as to how we live life. I'm enjoying my freedom while I can. I suggest you do too.

 

Actually no.  Modern diesel engines produce more smaller particles than the soot chuckers of yore.  These particles are better at getting deep into your lungs than larger ones, though below a certain size they tend to go straight back out.  The particles that stick in your lungs get absorbed into your blood stream, or certainly parts of them do.  Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are produced by incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, such as in diesel engines and cigarettes, and some of these are particularly carcinogenic.

 

So the risks associated with particulates from diesel engines are pretty much the same as cigarettes (except fags offer extra goodies such as carbon monoxide and cyanide).  The risks from carcinogens are measured in terms of risk over your lifetime, i.e. what is the additional risk you may get cancer above the background risk.

 

These types of risk are not comparable with an activity such as drink driving or sky diving, which poses a risk whilst you are doing it, but not at other times.

 

The question then becomes how to the risks from diesel engine particulates compare to smoking, both as a smoker and a non smoker.  Generally these risks are considered in terms of how many people within a population will die as a result of the fags or particulates over and above those who will dies of cancer anyway.  Or what is the additional chance of Joe Bloggs (i.e. You) developing cancer as a result of the exposure - this is where the lary newspaper headlines come from saying something will double/triple your risk, but your annual risk may then be 2 in 100,00 rather than 1 in 100,000.

 

Some articles I half remember reading recently indicate that air pollution in urban areas (mainly particulates) could be worse than second hand smoke but probably not as high as smoking.

 

Also you may personally have a disposition towards developing a certain kind(s) of cancer which dwarf the additional risk from particulates (such as genes which predispose you to breast cancer).

Wja96, if only what you are saying were true. None of the instances you give such as cream buns or smoking come close to the diesel nano particulate problem. Every scientific study carried out over the last decade has shown them to be on par or worse than some of the most toxic poisons the human body can be exposed to in everyday life. The everyday dose the average person gets, whether a driver (arguably most at risk dependant on time behind the wheel), or pedestrian has risen considerably in the last 5 years. Deaths from particulates was estimated at 100,000 in Europe over a 3 year period. And its rising fast. The main problem is naturally occurring benzine amongst other things in the particulates. This is highly carcinogenic and fast acting. Sheffield uni announced just 2 weeks ago that these diesel particulates are a direct cause of brain cancer among many others. Its proven beyond any doubt and is put forward as a main reason for the almost epidemic of brain cancer this country and Europe is experiencing. This is why diesel engine development is going flat out to find a way around the problem. That's why there are fewer diesel being offered by manufactures too and will remain the case until 2020 when new technology will be ready. But back to the OP, I was merely expressing some facts that its a very bad idea to tamper with dpf/cats and therefore disproportionately adding to the problem. Its also of course illegal to use a car on the road like that and at last something is being done to catch these people.

Benzene is not a significant component of diesel, but it is in petrol - it's what gives petrol it's distinctive odour.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Yes indeed, but still present we found in testing. Ultimately due to the number of particulate being emitted the dose from a diesel is greater by some way than from a petrol particularly in the first two miles of driving from cold when analysis showed it present in most particulate matter. But petrols are catching up fast! Anyhoo...I'm guessing we are needing another thread for this bit of the discussion!

I know for one....I am dying of boredom right here without any need for any interference of DPFs or Cats

 

I'm with what WJA said above and this thread has long done its course, as pointed out (and subtly ignored) there are indeed far worse things to worry about.

I personally am far more concerned with species depletion, one of them I will be saddest to see would be the tiger, which seems a real possibility in my lifetime. Who seems to care about that though eh when you can talk about minute risks of particulates affecting humans. Christ on a bike.

Frankly the human species isn't something that needs such high levels preservation anyway we can't live forever and overpopulation will become a problem if we can't die of something ??? What next, you will be looking to ban steam rallies I bet !! Give it a frigging rest already.

 

Also If you believed the bull and stats then many more of us would also be dead from either AIDS or Mad cow. What happened to them ?

 

I would suggest indeed following up this forum in a nice place away from the mk1s, like maybe diesel engineers today, because its starting to sound like one of the magazines they quote soundbites for in HIGNFY.....

I think the OP was just giving a heads up about catalytic convertors MAYBE becoming an issue in the future with MOTS not an open forum for the morally superior to look for ammunition for bashing others for their choices !!! If you don't like it, don't follow someone kicking smoke from the back of their car, is it that difficult.

 

Estate Man, you haven't even got a MK1 have you ? Why do you love this topic and this forum so much !! Go break the Mk2'ers balls over it !

Here's my (useless) 2-penneth worth.

My dear old dad always used to laugh about things like this. Why?

In his lifetime he'd seen scientists says red fruit/veg was really good for you, due to research, then some time later another group of scientists would say they weren't so good for you.

Several large glasses of wine a week? Please do said the scientists. Then some other scientists would say

"Oh no no no, young man, it's detrimental to you health"

Then up would pop another group who would contradict that last statement.

Watch QI for a really good lay and explaination of how something is 'proved' or disproved scientifically.

My point?

I don't know other than that there will always be opposing points of view, both between us, as laymen, and scientists, who will 'prove' or 'disprove each other's theories.

After all, research pays handsomely, doesn't it......

Wja96, if only what you are saying were true. None of the instances you give such as cream buns or smoking come close to the diesel nano particulate problem. Every scientific study carried out over the last decade has shown them to be on par or worse than some of the most toxic poisons the human body can be exposed to in everyday life. The everyday dose the average person gets, whether a driver (arguably most at risk dependant on time behind the wheel), or pedestrian has risen considerably in the last 5 years. Deaths from particulates was estimated at 100,000 in Europe over a 3 year period. And its rising fast. The main problem is naturally occurring benzine amongst other things in the particulates. This is highly carcinogenic and fast acting. Sheffield uni announced just 2 weeks ago that these diesel particulates are a direct cause of brain cancer among many others. Its proven beyond any doubt and is put forward as a main reason for the almost epidemic of brain cancer this country and Europe is experiencing. This is why diesel engine development is going flat out to find a way around the problem. That's why there are fewer diesel being offered by manufactures too and will remain the case until 2020 when new technology will be ready. But back to the OP, I was merely expressing some facts that its a very bad idea to tamper with dpf/cats and therefore disproportionately adding to the problem. Its also of course illegal to use a car on the road like that and at last something is being done to catch these people.

Once again you are using highly emotive and inaccurate language to try and scare people.

The particulate (nano or otherwise) are not LETHAL. Think about what you said in your original post. You said the particulates were LETHAL. They are not. They have been shown to increase the risk of causing cancer in pre-disposed individuals.

Now you say there is a "almost epidemic" of brain cancers in the UK and Europe. Rubbish. Medical researchers need to get more funding, so it very much in their interest to write up the results of their last study in a way that makes continuation of their research important. There may well be an increase in brain cancers but you do not distinguish between tumours that are diagnosed as malignant and not, or the number of these cancers that are operable, or the fact that information is now being gathered on conditions that was simply never there before. If I buy a CAT scanner with 100 times the resolution of our old one, it will pick up tumours 100 times smaller. That doesn't mean that those tumours were not there before, or that they are potentially fatal to the patient.

You say 100,000 people have died from particulate exposure in the last 3 years. If your argument holds water then this level will either vanish as a result of DPFs or it will accelerate exponentially given all the extra diesels on the roads. Except it's not going to do either. If what you are saying is true then long-term HGV and PSV drivers should be dying like flies. They're not. You're scare-mongering. Please stop.

100,000 people in 3 years? Check the number of deaths in road traffic incidents. It simply dwarfs your figure. Yet my car has three times more airbags than seats and explosive seat belts that grab me tight when I get in. What makes driving dangerous? Texting,me-mailing, phoning, updating your Facebook status, getting you brain pounded to mush by music over 110dBA, all while you exceed the speed limit or drive too fast for the conditions. THAT'S WHAT'S DANGEROUS.

DPFs and CATs will not save the world from cancer. Practically everything (including water) is carcinogenic under the right circumstances in a pre-disposed individual. Stop worrying about the day you never saw and start enjoying life. Your blood pressure improvement might just save you from a heart attack or stroke.

Once again you are using highly emotive and inaccurate language to try and scare people.

The particulate (nano or otherwise) are not LETHAL. Think about what you said in your original post. You said the particulates were LETHAL. They are not. They have been shown to increase the risk of causing cancer in pre-disposed individuals.

Now you say there is a "almost epidemic" of brain cancers in the UK and Europe. Rubbish. Medical researchers need to get more funding, so it very much in their interest to write up the results of their last study in a way that makes continuation of their research important. There may well be an increase in brain cancers but you do not distinguish between tumours that are diagnosed as malignant and not, or the number of these cancers that are operable, or the fact that information is now being gathered on conditions that was simply never there before. If I buy a CAT scanner with 100 times the resolution of our old one, it will pick up tumours 100 times smaller. That doesn't mean that those tumours were not there before, or that they are potentially fatal to the patient.

You say 100,000 people have died from particulate exposure in the last 3 years. If your argument holds water then this level will either vanish as a result of DPFs or it will accelerate exponentially given all the extra diesels on the roads. Except it's not going to do either. If what you are saying is true then long-term HGV and PSV drivers should be dying like flies. They're not. You're scare-mongering. Please stop.

100,000 people in 3 years? Check the number of deaths in road traffic incidents. It simply dwarfs your figure. Yet my car has three times more airbags than seats and explosive seat belts that grab me tight when I get in. What makes driving dangerous? Texting,me-mailing, phoning, updating your Facebook status, getting you brain pounded to mush by music over 110dBA, all while you exceed the speed limit or drive too fast for the conditions. THAT'S WHAT'S DANGEROUS.

DPFs and CATs will not save the world from cancer. Practically everything (including water) is carcinogenic under the right circumstances in a pre-disposed individual. Stop worrying about the day you never saw and start enjoying life. Your blood pressure improvement might just save you from a heart attack or stroke.

 

Hi wja, I understand you are not well informed on this subject, that is apparent. There is probably no real reason you should be. Also of course you are entitled to your own views on this like anything else. But it would be nice to think you had based your statements on facts. However, everything I have said is accurate and checkable and most is public knowledge already and has been extensively covered in the motoring and other press and on tv, particularly the bit about the massive number of deaths from particulates from diesels. In the last few weeks much more knowledge about the dangers which are proven, have also been released. I've been a tech and mtech plus an engine design engineer and developer for near 35 years (now semi retired). Just recently I've had a hand in developing a new diesel engine which is likely to be released in 2020 or just after. Inlet and emission control is my baby amongst other things so I do have to study the environmental issues on air quality and it's effects (publically available to anyone by the way) and the science behind all this stuff we have all been chatting about. Granted few understand it or even care. I share the view we need to take a balanced view too, but this really is a biggy if you study it with governments and manufacturers taking it incredibly seriously to the point diesel production is being wound right down until after the Euro 7 introduction. It's taking that long to get the technology right.

 

More immediately, it's fairly typical to hear the rants and falses arguments put up by those that want to alter their exhaust systems to the detriment of all others. Interesting that in this thread we have people who are concerned about the fact their neighbours burn rubbish in the garden forcing them to breath all their ****e, which they can do nothing about apparently except rant, and then seem to rubbish any argument against drivers who do the same with their cars, which in fact is far more harming to health. Bonfires are toxic but much less toxic to the human body than diesel particulates which are now identified as the biggest pollutant and biggest threat to human health. Also, smoke from diesels has little to do with the subject we are talking about here. It's the invisible nanos and the way they float in the air for hours covering big distances and entering every part of life even into your home that are the concern. By the way, the Fabia Mk1 is an incredible car. Love it!

I think this thread has got out of hand

Hi wja, I understand you are not well informed on this subject, that is apparent. There is probably no real reason you should be. Also of course you are entitled to your own views on this like anything else. But it would be nice to think you had based your statements on facts. However, everything I have said is accurate and checkable and most is public knowledge already and has been extensively covered in the motoring and other press and on tv, particularly the bit about the massive number of deaths from particulates from diesels. In the last few weeks much more knowledge about the dangers which are proven, have also been released. I've been a tech and mtech plus an engine design engineer and developer for near 35 years (now semi retired). Just recently I've had a hand in developing a new diesel engine which is likely to be released in 2020 or just after. Inlet and emission control is my baby amongst other things so I do have to study the environmental issues on air quality and it's effects (publically available to anyone by the way) and the science behind all this stuff we have all been chatting about. Granted few understand it or even care. I share the view we need to take a balanced view too, but this really is a biggy if you study it with governments and manufacturers taking it incredibly seriously to the point diesel production is being wound right down until after the Euro 7 introduction. It's taking that long to get the technology right.

More immediately, it's fairly typical to hear the rants and falses arguments put up by those that want to alter their exhaust systems to the detriment of all others. Interesting that in this thread we have people who are concerned about the fact their neighbours burn rubbish in the garden forcing them to breath all their ****e, which they can do nothing about apparently except rant, and then seem to rubbish any argument against drivers who do the same with their cars, which in fact is far more harming to health. Bonfires are toxic but much less toxic to the human body than diesel particulates which are now identified as the biggest pollutant and biggest threat to human health. Also, smoke from diesels has little to do with the subject we are talking about here. It's the invisible nanos and the way they float in the air for hours covering big distances and entering every part of life even into your home that are the concern. By the way, the Fabia Mk1 is an incredible car. Love it!

I agree with wja, lethal is an unhelpful, emotive term. Having a safe dropped on is lethal. Guns, tigers and knives are lethal. Exposure to diesel exhaust particulates puts you at an increased risk of developing cancer. Life cannot be lived without risk, so society has to agree what an unacceptable level of risk is, you cannot determine it empirically.

But again you cannot compare it to sky diving or drink driving as a risk. Also effects are additive, so the risks from diesel exhaust add to other smoke and emissions and chemical exposure, both natural and man made. It is not simple or obvious.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

The main issue if you've removed a DPF is vosa roadside tests and if you ever intended to trade in to a garage or dealer as they WILL check it's there!

Yeah...lethal doesn't sound good, but it's not my choice of word. It's the word used in some very recent environmental reports to describe the effects of nanos from diesels. Lethal in the context used means 'causing death' or a 'suggestive of death' as per the English Dictionary. My colleague died of a class 4 brain tumour 3 years ago due to living next to a busy road in town. She was a non driver. Yet her tumour at the nucleus was full of diesel particulates, as were other parts of the brain. She was 42 years old. She had no history of brain cancers in the family and was one of the many victims of our time. It isn't just people with a pre-disposition towards cancer that are affected. In fact they are in the minority. Empirical evidence has been vital in aiding the science too. All I'm saying is that it's well researched now and that's why VOSA and the police are going to get heavy with folk disobeying the rules. gadetman is quite right. 

 

The thing that makes this site so great is the tolerant attitude of the majority. Failure to see the facts or someone else's point of view is not mandatory. I understand where many of you are coming from, but it's best to challenge illegal and wrong things and attitudes which can harm.  Attitudes which are nearly always formed from ignorance of the facts. It's been a good discussion. 

Edited 8 February, 201412 yr by Estate Man

I may not be a diesel engineer but my background in medicine makes me very well able to discuss healthcare matters and you are talking nonsense with regard to the dangers of exposure to environmental pollutants.

Compare the risk from 'nano-particulates' to that from exposure to the various forms of asbestos. That should perhaps allow some scope for perspective. If, as you say, you cannot purchase a modern (in your words) dangerous Diesel engine without a Diesel particulate filter why would there be a problem?

It's simply a nonsensical argument to state that something is lethal when it patently isn't. You claim it is not your phrase yet you repeat it because it adds to the urgency of your argument. I would ask you again to demonstrate (through a peer-reviewed scientific paper preferably) that these diesel nano-particulates are as dangerous as you repeatedly state.

I am most certainly not unable to support my end of the discussion and I am not encouraging anyone to strip emissions control equipment from vehicles but if the danger is as great as you say then companies offering to remove DPFs must be at significant risk of litigation when the owners of said vehicles develop symptoms and they should be shut down as surely as the suppliers of asbestos panels were.

Should mechanics not be wearing respirators when they change exhausts on modern diesels just in case they directly inhale any nan-particulates from the proximal end of the filter?

I am not stating that nano-particulates are not potentially harmful however I think you should place the RISK to health in a sensible context. They are not lethal. Not by a long shot.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But the fact you open your argument above telling me I'm talking nonsense indicates you have no or little knowledge of the matter being discussed. So far I haven't heard anything that supports your end of an argument just you saying everything I say is complete nonsense. Clearly, not a learned response. You clearly have not seen any of the latest research. It's out there, go find it. You can at base level request an environmental planning air quality study for your area. I did and got quite a shock. We now have them from across the country. Diesels are the main cause of particulates that we all breath (source: who, environmental health plus loads of others). They need dramatically cutting. I cannot publish our own research as it's copyrighted. The comparison between white asbestos and nano's has been made in many reports. Nano's are faster acting than white asbestos. It seems to be subject to age of person, and dose received as to how quickly it affects anyone with many other diseases being caused in addition to the potentially serious cancers. The nhs has stated it's concerns too over diesel particulates and the huge rise in lung disorders and brain cancers. The supposed safe limit in our cities and towns is being exceeded by more than 100% at peak time in some areas. That's a worry. But hey, I'm not a doctor I just have seminars that I attend about it, and reports to read on the subject. It affects how we develop an engine. 

 

Anyway, I'm done and not revisiting this thread as there is little point. It's talked out for sure. Good day all.

Can someone move this to the 'environmental and ethics' section so Estate Man, wja96 and others can continue this gripping discussion....

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But the fact you open your argument above telling me I'm talking nonsense indicates you have no or little knowledge of the matter being discussed. So far I haven't heard anything that supports your end of an argument just you saying everything I say is complete nonsense. Clearly, not a learned response.

So link me to it. Or state the references. I have a reader's card for Cambridge University Library, so I have access to all the medical journals.

You clearly have not seen any of the latest research. It's out there, go find it.

But that's the problem. I've done a couple of searches on the usual suspects for scientific journals and I can find nothing that references 'nanos' or 'nano-particulates' relating to diesel.

You can at base level request an environmental planning air quality study for your area. I did and got quite a shock. We now have them from across the country. Diesels are the main cause of particulates that we all breath (source: who, environmental health plus loads of others). They need dramatically cutting.

Sorry, but that's not a medical study. That's not a longitudinal survey. That's not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. That's you requesting an air survey and making an assertion that something is wrong.

You say "they need dramatically cutting" but you don't say from what to what. Is there a trigger level. Is there a definition of a 'nano'. At what point does a particulate emission become a 'nano-particulate'?

I cannot publish our own research as it's copyrighted.

Copyright just means you claim intellectual property rights over your work. Every book published is copyright. They're all published. Are you saying your company has carried out independent research on humans with regard to inducing carcinoma with diesel particulates?

The comparison between white asbestos and nano's has been made in many reports. Nano's are faster acting than white asbestos. It seems to be subject to age of person, and dose received as to how quickly it affects anyone with many other diseases being caused in addition to the potentially serious cancers.

It's faster acting than white asbestos? OK. You are referring to age/dose/time interactions but I genuinely cannot find any peer reviewed medical or scientific literature that talks about 'nano-particulates' or 'nanos'. Is this a term your company uses? Do you have a definition?

The nhs has stated it's concerns too over diesel particulates and the huge rise in lung disorders and brain cancers. The supposed safe limit in our cities and towns is being exceeded by more than 100% at peak time in some areas. That's a worry. But hey, I'm not a doctor I just have seminars that I attend about it, and reports to read on the subject. It affects how we develop an engine.

You see, that's where I worry. You appear to be developing an engine on the premise that these 'nano-particulates' are the new asbestos. Can you name the engine company?

 

Anyway, I'm done and not revisiting this thread as there is little point. It's talked out for sure. Good day all.

I don't understand why you won't link me to any research? I'm open-minded and I want to be enlightened. I just see these scare-stories every day about this or that impending health apocalypse and the fact is that the big killers in the western world remain what they were - smoking related disorders, obesity related disorders and road traffic incidents. But stopping people smoking and getting them to eat well, take exercise and drive safely doesn't sell anything. So it just continues.

You repeatedly state that I am ignorant about this issue, but you won't educate me. Shame.

White asbestos (by which which I assume you mean chrysotile) is actually the least hazardous of the common three asbestos types.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

As this thread is still going !

I actually think the common household is one of the most dangerous and polluting places to me (it was back in victorian times, but still is now).

The housemite is terrible for instance. Causes untold problems with peoples breathing and health like triggering allergies.

I know it definitely affects me (far worse than any traffic fumes too, well for the traffic I'm exposed to which is a mix of urban).

 

So ban the housemite, make it a point on the MOT ( well you can presumably get housemites in car seats can't you?). Anyone who doesn't change their cabin filter or removes it altogether is basically torturing the passengers. Nasty evil dustmites and irresponsible owners !

 

Anyone who doesn't vaccuum their car from time to time should be forced to live in their car. For like a year !!!

 

I haven't gone totally mental, just a bit of light hearted fun needed to an otherwise dull thread

I'm sure you are aware that in Germany it's illegal to wash your car at home because they insist all detergent run-off is contained.

You can go quite mad once you decide to eliminate ALL risk from life.

As this thread is still going !

I actually think the common household is one of the most dangerous and polluting places to me (it was back in victorian times, but still is now).

The housemite is terrible for instance. Causes untold problems with peoples breathing and health like triggering allergies.

I know it definitely affects me (far worse than any traffic fumes too, well for the traffic I'm exposed to which is a mix of urban).

 

So ban the housemite, make it a point on the MOT ( well you can presumably get housemites in car seats can't you?). Anyone who doesn't change their cabin filter or removes it altogether is basically torturing the passengers. Nasty evil dustmites and irresponsible owners !

 

Anyone who doesn't vaccuum their car from time to time should be forced to live in their car. For like a year !!!

 

I haven't gone totally mental, just a bit of light hearted fun needed to an otherwise dull thread

 

 

I agree, there are people who say that these particles cause cancer yet I bet that they have wireless internet in their house, cordless phones, bluetooth devices, etc... All these run on 2.4Ghz which is absorbed by water and the average percent of water in the human body is 50-65%... People know that these things can cause cancer because it is so close to the microwave frequency but it doesn't stop them, I bet Estate Man even has wireless!

I'm locking this now.

I have shown people what I wanted them to see regarding the cat, and the continuation of this thread is not relevant.