End of diesel overland travelling in Europe.

MarkW

Well-Known Member
I am in morocco
Aug 20, 2014
2,240
848
113
Dorset
Alas 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.
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob Cowell
Don't like the adverts? Remove them by becoming a supporting member.   Click here

moggy1968

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2013
2,937
1,315
113
We have morphed the conversation slightly from legislating diesels off the roads and global warming, which aren’t really related
 

Shayne

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Guru
Feb 2, 2013
12,757
4,598
113
South Wales UK
Can't even blame the scientists when unwanted results means no funding so no research .

Gov were always nagging me to let marine scientists aboard my boat , i said the skipper can take them out but if he brings them back he is sacked .

At public meeting one day over the same issue where fisherman were suffering a huge financial loss because scientists had factually proven there are no queen scallops to catch something amazing happened , scientists accepted the challenge of letting a fisherman try to prove them wrong .

Two hours later they returned to the harbour with this boat filled with fish that had been factually and scientifically proven not to exist .

DSC000884.JPG


The fishing ban remained in place - for further studies , because their livelihood is more important than mine :icon-rolleyes:
 

StarCruiser

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Guru
I am in uk
Oct 7, 2014
11,731
4,752
113
Bognor Regis UK
Garage
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
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: moggy1968 and Chas

clivehorridge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Guru
I am in romania
May 23, 2012
14,800
4,748
113
Comarnic, Romania
Garage
There has to be common sense to any debate, but this isn’t a debate, it’s a forced piece of legislation that (probably) only a minority support. And it’s adopted by the whole of the EU. If I was to claim money in a case and my proof of loss was based on one sample station (irrespective of where it was located) I’d be laughed out of court. I often have to prove exceptionality, and to do that I need to use studies going back 150 years in some cases to prove that the “exception” is not a recurring exception, meaning it could be considered a norm. Statistical analysis, one sample, what a load of tosh.
 

chapel gate

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Promoted Company
I am in england
May 26, 2014
3,854
2,338
113
near, leek staffs.
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.
The planet has been much warmer even before industrialisation.
"Blaa blaa blaa, since records began" they don't even nearly go back far enough to show any kind of trend.
 

moggy1968

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2013
2,937
1,315
113
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?
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.
 

GeekOKent

Well-Known Member
Supporter
I am in uk
Jul 1, 2013
2,202
635
113
London, by day.. Kent, by choice
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.
Where/what at home is creating these nitrites?
 

moggy1968

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2013
2,937
1,315
113
Where/what at home is creating these nitrites?
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.
Add to that the ridiculous building requirements for airtight homes so there’s a lack of circulating air and all that shit hangs in the atmosphere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarCruiser

clivehorridge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Guru
I am in romania
May 23, 2012
14,800
4,748
113
Comarnic, Romania
Garage
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...
 

Chas

Well-Known Member
Supporter
I am in england
Mar 15, 2010
16,882
4,508
113
Merton Park London
Garage
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...
Well said Clive, I packed in the fags 6 months ago can I have the extra 15 years now please?
 

Rob Cowell

Well-Known Member
I am in wales
Nov 15, 2011
1,296
597
113
Wales
Comparing cars to cookers.

2 rings on the cooker is 1300 μg/m3. What is the car doing to be limited to 40 μg/m3? Emissions are measured in output/km so someone is normalising values, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do but they need to describe that process for it to have any meaning.

Im sat drinking my coffee (not too hot, don't want throat cancer!) in a shop next to a road right now. There are cars driving past constantly. More that one a second when I consider both sides. There were probably more earlier. So having normalised the emissions figures I need to include frequency in my calculations. The cars, in this location are high in frequency I suspect most of the day. So what % of people use gas cookers compared to the % using diesel cars, and how does the duration of cooking and driving compare?

Then I suspect, but I'm no chemist, that the NO2 problem is with concentration and so targeting cars makes sense in cities where the NO2 is being produced close to your face daily. Fossil fuel fired power stations are probably pretty bad news too but we don't build so many schools, and coffee shops next to them, and they have stuff like big chimneys to push as much of the emissions up high to get them to dissipate.

Unfortunately I suspect it's a little more complicated than comparing normalised figures in isolation. And isolated observations; my grandmother is 95, has smoked 20 a day since she was 14 and looks pretty good for it. I hope I've inherited her genes. The problem, as always, is simple comparisons are easy to understand so gain a lot of traction. That's not to say the more complex calculations shouldn't be questioned.
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks