http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6298/20140501/experts-blame-diesel-engine-pollution-for-7000-deaths-in-uk-annually.htm

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6298/20140501/experts-blame-diesel-engine-pollution-for-7000-deaths-in-uk-annually.htm

I think this belongs in the conspiracy thread to be honest....

More utter twaddle to keep these think towers in jobs.

In my opinion btw.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6298/20140501/experts-blame-diesel-engine-pollution-for-7000-deaths-in-uk-annually.htm

From that report:

 

"Catalytic converters, which convert toxic exhaust gas pollutants to less toxic pollutants, have greatly improved in petrol-powered cars but not as much in diesel cars until lately."

 

So the problem is older diesels cars?  "Until lately", is that  1 year, 2 years, 10 years?

Interesting, but full of weasel words -

 

may be.......

about............

 

Additionally, they are basing this on a 6 year old study, since which time cats and DPFs have changed and their use extended considerably.

Its funny how academics and the likes can not see out into the real world,  

just look outside at the Transportation Vehicles & Working vehicles in the likes of the UK,

 

Buses, Vans, Lorries, Heavy Plant , Light Plant, Agricultural Vehicles, Boats, Ships, Ferries Trains etc etc.

 

They run on Heavy Oil,  

millions & millions of Vehicles & Engines annually using Billions of Litres of Heavy Oil (Diesel)

Then there are Personal/Private & Business Passenger vehicles, ie Cars.

 

So lets see how the Oil & Gas Industry & the Governments Treasury deal with getting rid of Heavy Oil Burners.

Over what time scale.

Lets see who and where are going to build these engines and vehicles to replace what is already operating on our roads and land.

 

Great idea, so lets get everything running on Refined Petroleum, Electric, Hydrogen etc.

That might be in another 50 years, or pigs might fly.

 

george

 

PS

'Early Deaths', People die of something, and when they stop kicking the bucket, there will be lots more vehicles on the road, but less hearses.

More Ambulances though.

From discussions with an oncology specialist, he believes (but his department doesn't yet have facts to prove it, only anecdotal evidence) that, whilst older diesel engines have more visible pollutants, the filters on modern engines are far worse because the near-invisible, carcinogenic, soot particles are much smaller and thus driven deeper into the lungs.   The trouble is, like the cigarette smoking debacle (it was known in 1900 that cigarettes and cancer were linked - it took nearly 70 years before people saw the link for themselves), it will probably take a whole generation before anyone admits there are serious issues.

http://blog.greenflag.com/2014/banning-diesel-cars

From discussions with an oncology specialist, he believes (but his department doesn't yet have facts to prove it, only anecdotal evidence) that, whilst older diesel engines have more visible pollutants, the filters on modern engines are far worse because the near-invisible, carcinogenic, soot particles are much smaller and thus driven deeper into the lungs.   The trouble is, like the cigarette smoking debacle (it was known in 1900 that cigarettes and cancer were linked - it took nearly 70 years before people saw the link for themselves), it will probably take a whole generation before anyone admits there are serious issues.

This doesn't make sense.

 

Is he saying that older diesels produced only larger particles?

 

Or that the filters (DPF's etc.) now trap the larger particles and let through the smaller.

 

If the latter, surely the older engines ALSO produced these microscopic particles, but nothing at all was being done about particles of any size. If so, how is the present position worse?

This doesn't make sense.

Is he saying that older diesels produced only larger particles?

Or that the filters (DPF's etc.) now trap the larger particles and let through the smaller.

If the latter, surely the older engines ALSO produced these microscopic particles, but nothing at all was being done about particles of any size. If so, how is the present position worse?

Modern diesels produce a lot more smaller particles than older engines. They are more efficient combustion wise.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

All combustion produces particulates. Diesels, petrol, coal gas and oil fired central heating and power stations. None of them is "safe". They all also produce oxides of nitrogen and other nasties.

Diesel particulates are particularly (pun? moi?) large. They are covered in nasty gudge and usually clump together, falling on the road like coke.

Petrol and other fuels produce much smaller particulates. Being smaller, they are drawn deeper into the various alveoli of the lungs. This is likely to be even more dangerous, being that much more difficult for the body to limit the entry and subsequently eject them afterwards.

The fact over looked is that Diesels engines consume less fuel per mile, you get more movement per gram of rubbish.

Power stations are not very efficient converting chemical energy into electricity. At all.

Power stations are not very efficient converting chemical energy into electricity. At all.

 

This is 100% true.

But at least they don't pump the crud out right outside your house/kid's school.

Really small particles get into your lungs but them get breathed straight back out again. There is a range of particle sizes small enough to get in but too big to get back out, these are the most hazardous ones, and what modern diesel engines seem to produce.

The question is whether the particles that escape a dpf are less hazardous.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

They say Diesel engine cars older than 5 years old should be banned from city centres, So does that also mean the old well past their best buses that chuck out pollution?   About time the petrochemical companies were forced to do something about it by producing cleaner fuels instead of the ''knee jerk reaction'' of blaming the car drivers.....

They say Diesel engine cars older than 5 years old should be banned from city centres, So does that also mean the old well past their best buses that chuck out pollution? About time the petrochemical companies were forced to do something about it by producing cleaner fuels instead of the ''knee jerk reaction'' of blaming the car drivers.....

Its less about the fuel composition and more about combustion efficiency.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Internal combustion engines are bad for your health.

 

Next.

 

Might as well recommend a return to horses.

Internal combustion engines are bad for your health.

 

Next.

 

Precisely.

 

What ever way you slice it, chucking petroleum distillates into an engine and igniting it in a controlled explosion is always going to result in bad stuff coming out of the exhaust.....regardless of what petroleum derived fuel it is. If you lock yourself in a garage with one running, it will still kill you regardless of how advanced modern catalytic converters have got.

 

If the 'experts' really want to reduce the effect of exhaust gasses on our health, then they need to develop affordable Hydrogen powered fuel cell cars, where the only tail pipe emission is water vapour.  

Edited 11 July, 201411 yr by booke23

Precisely.

 

What ever way you slice it, chucking petroleum distillates into an engine and igniting it in a controlled explosion is always going to result in bad stuff coming out of the exhaust.....regardless of what petroleum derived fuel it is. If you lock yourself in a garage with one running, it will still kill you regardless of how advanced modern catalytic converters have got.

 

If the 'experts' really want to reduce the effect of exhaust gasses on our health, then they need to develop affordable Hydrogen powered fuel cell cars, where the only tail pipe emission is water vapour.  

That is the future, The Hydrogen fuel cell, hydrogen unlike fossil fuels will never run out, Only it's expensive to extract from whatever it's ''attached'' to..

How's about we consign them to the scrap heap for proper reasons, they are dull, slow and for people who have given up on life (if you bought one with your own money that is, some of us have diesel thrust upon us) I think my reasons are better.

Someone needs to seriously bang some heads in the USA!

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/rollin-coal-the-next-big-protest

I'd be happy to switch to a clean petrol car. If the new vRS wasn't so expensive! :p

 

To be fair the government and motor world pushed the vast majority of people into a diesel because it was Cleaner and better value. Now they have changed their mind.

 

I'd also be happy to swap my diesel vRS for a exact same spec and mileage petrol.

 

Still if we all stopped using cars full stop that would be better, would bankrupt the goverment but just think how healthy we would be!

How's about we consign them to the scrap heap for proper reasons, they are dull, slow and for people who have given up on life (if you bought one with your own money that is, some of us have diesel thrust upon us) I think my reasons are better.

Are you trolling? 

Previous car had a 1.6 petrol that returned 30mpg on my 50mile daily commute. Current, 1.9 TDI returns 50mpg (49.7, but hey). I'm now saving £100 a month.   But sacrificing speed and excitement, right? Because Diesels are slow and dull.

 

That petrol 1.6 managed 0-60 in around 16 seconds.

The TDI is the PD130 and in the little furby covers 0-60 in a little under 8 seconds.  Nevermind the change in what I can do moving from40-60mph, or 60-70 on the motorway.

 

Dull and slow? puhleeese.

 

 

 

Anyway, coming back to the article, this made me smile:

"Fumes generated by diesel-powered cars also harm the brains of young children raising their risks for schizophrenia and autism."

I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm fairly sure schizophrenia isn't brought on by grubby air, and Autism? HA!  Nobody knows what causes Autism, there is no evidence on causes, only theories. 

I call BS on this one and Asp nailed it:

 

Internal combustion engines are bad for your health.

 

Next.

 

Might as well recommend a return to horses.

Anyway, coming back to the article, this made me smile:

"Fumes generated by diesel-powered cars also harm the brains of young children raising their risks for schizophrenia and autism."

I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm fairly sure schizophrenia isn't brought on by grubby air, and Autism? HA!  Nobody knows what causes Autism, there is no evidence on causes, only theories. 

 

 

Quite possible, if the fumes have some toxic effect on the brain.

A quick search brought up that welders can have symptoms of Parkinsons due to manganese poisoning from the welding rods.

Not trolling at all, I drive a diesel company car and it's petrol equivalent is a much much better car, same as ANY like for like petrol diesel comparison

Did somebody say diesels are dirty? What utter Bull, DPF remove 99.9% of all particulates, most diesel cars have clean tail pipes now can't say the same for petrol.

 

 

Honda gave us the answer in 2006. Strange how a car that doesn't pollute hasn't caught on, I guess there's nothing to £ove it for.