- Mar 11, 2014
Partly correct but after 20 years as an environmental professional running and planning aq monitoring regimes and assessing the results I prefer to rely on the information obtained that way. Certainly no money landed in my pocket to alter or corrupt the results and some of that was Eu and government fundedAlas facts get ignored when money enters the equation and evidence gets manufactured and presented as facts. Laws then get based upon these ‘facts’ by people who know nothing about what they are legislating about apart from what they are presented with as ‘the facts’ in front of them.
This particular (pardon the pun) law clearly has little to no base on fact. Just like the anthropogenic global warming lie which is presented as truth.
So why is a conflicting view a ‘conspiracy theory’ Mark? What is actually wrong with what that video showed?Partly correct but after 20 years as an environmental professional running and planning aq monitoring regimes and assessing the results I prefer to rely on the information obtained that way. Certainly no money landed in my pocket to alter or corrupt the results and some of that was Eu and government funded
Always amazes me that not a single conspiracy to theory has been proven
The planet has been much warmer even before industrialisation.Millions of years of energy from the sun stored as fossil fuels being released in a century and a half or so is likely to warm things up a bit.
One of the horrific death causing immoral child slaughtering polar bear killing aspects of diesel that gets raised is the inhalation of nitrates. Conveniently overlooking that an estimated 80% of harmful nitrates breathed in are actually from the home. Of the remaining 20% a relatively small amount comes from Diesel engined vehicles.So why is a conflicting view a ‘conspiracy theory’ Mark? What is actually wrong with what that video showed?
To be clear here, I’m not suggesting you or anyone else have been paid to change your findings.
It seems to me, if questions on a survey or poll are asked in a certain way, any desired outcome can be steered the way whoever asks the question wants. If indeed that is what is wanted.
The air quality sampling unit shown in the video was, if I heard correctly, the only one in Stuttgart and was sited exactly adjacent to a road where vehicles would be stationary for periods before starting and accelerating away. Now, if we wanted to find a high reading, wouldn’t that spot be pretty much perfect to get a consistently high reading, especially when the lights turn green? How does this one site then relate to the whole of the rest of Stuttgart? To me it would appear that the ‘facts’ in this particular case are flawed, because it’s a microscopic view of reality. Had there been several monitoring stations all round Stuttgart, in various types of locations, then the data produced could be considered credible.
Perhaps you can clarify this one for me, what percentage of particulates are generally found to come from diesel emissions and what percentage come from brakes and tyres?
Finally, how many people are proven to have actually died with diesel particulates as the only cause or catalyst?
Where/what at home is creating these nitrites?One of the horrific death causing immoral child slaughtering polar bear killing aspects of diesel that gets raised is the inhalation of nitrates. Conveniently overlooking that an estimated 80% of harmful nitrates breathed in are actually from the home. Of the remaining 20% a relatively small amount comes from Diesel engined vehicles.
The biggest culprit is gas from heating and cooking, but there are also concerns around the chemicals released by sprays and aerosols that are massively overused around the home.Where/what at home is creating these nitrites?
Well said Clive, I packed in the fags 6 months ago can I have the extra 15 years now please?I'm no scientist, but according to the video, here's some NO2 figures to think on:
limit for vehicle emissions is 40 microgrammes/m3;
In the guy's apartment, he got readings of 80 microgrammes / m3;
When they turned on 2 rings of the gas cooker, they got 1,300 microgrammes / m3;
A smoker inhales between 500,000 and 1,000,000 microgrammes / m3.
A 40 year smoker on average has a life expectancy of maybe 15 years less than a non-smoker.
Also, I've heard, the particles emitted by older diesels are much larger (meaning they don't stay airborne for very long) than the EU6/6A+ particulates which are so fine they pass through lung tissue and directly enter the bloodstream, and they are known to be carcinogenic.
If this is BS then who knows who or what to believe.
Again, we common plebs turn to government appointed experts to provide us with reliable scientifically proven info, and all we get is political bias and bollox laws, just to satisfy some jumped up politician's ego and political gain.
If the EU NO2 limit of 40 microgrammes / m3 was the maximum scientifically proven safe level, I wouldn't complain at all.
It's hard to believe it is, as a smoker inhaling 500,000 to 1,000,000 microgrammes / m3, I would have dropped down dead at 20 years old.. and I'm 65 and not alone. OK maybe I'll die 15 years before the average non-smoker, but it's a lottery, not a rule to base legislation on. If they ban cars exceeding that level, why don't they ban gas cookers and water heaters and illegalise smoking, FFS.
How much NO2 does a car factory produce, per vehicle.
My dear sister died of lung cancer at 67, she never smoked and she lived on the outskirts of town with next to no traffic pollution.
That mayor of Stuttgart who was penalised should have stood his ground on this one, and challenged the decision in the courts. It's time this nonsense was put a stop to, or properly verified scientifically, and published.
We're all bloody mushrooms.
Rant over, for now...