And the upshot of this (your post and the WSJ article) is we no longer have the shot calling capacity we once had? To a take it or leave it proposition, it is hard to "leave it" if we systematically continue to persuit and achieve the goal of ZERO domestic oil production.
I heard on some cable TV news channel that BO, POTUS called a few of the oil producing Arab states to get them to produce MORE, given the price rising for both the barrel and 36 consecutive @ the USA pumps' increases, probably as a shoot yourself in the foot, loss of Libya oil production.
So on the one hand they tell us to conserve and when the price goes wild they call the producers to tell em to produce more. SNAFU.
I think the upshot is that it doesn't matter how much we drill. We could add maybe 3% to the world oil supply by drilling and developing our reserves. Not a drop in the bucket in other words. Because of increased worldwide demand, the demand for oil is going to remain strong and the market is going to react by raising prices.
Your fuel bill is going up whether you use gasoline or diesel (not to mention the price of everything else).
Adding to the world's supply is really not the point is it? If that is really the point, this whole notion of less dependency on foreign oil is a complete, utter and total SHAM.
Right and so using a car like a diesel (like for like) using 20-40 % less is really not a big deal either? So we can barely cut back the real growth (- 1.6%) when the price of RUG to PUG is CRUSHING!!?? I really am ok with that, just as long as folks who do use diesel can pay par to less per gal of diesel than RUG to PUG and probably more importantly 20-40% less per mile driven :shades:
Truthfull after app 182,000 miles of diesel operation it is pretty seamless and effortless.
People still look funny at me when I tell them after driving the TDI hard, that I only get 49 mpg. Drives the Prius folks crazy when I tell them if I drove the Prius like you have to to get 50 mpg, I can easily post 56 to 60 mpg in the TDI. In truth I really try to avoid those types of discussions.
"Modern diesel cars may not be as clean as previously thought.... Auto standards often focus on carbon emissions and fuel economy, where diesel vehicles perform best, omitting other effects, including soot, where they fare worst, say experts."
"The progress the nation has made in cleaning up coal-fired power plants, diesel emissions and other pollution sources has drastically cut dangerous pollution from the air we breathe," said Lung Association President Charles Connor in a statement."
has drastically cut dangerous pollution from the air we breathe," said Lung Association President Charles Connor in a statement."
So, if the air we are breathing is cleaner why the rise in breathing ailments. One theory is we do not exercise our lungs enough. Kids in 1950 spent 20 hours per day indoors. In 2000 they spent 23.5 hours per day indoors. So maybe it never was the diesel smoke causing lung related diseases. Just a handy scapegoat. Most I have read is it is not what you smell that is causing the problems. CO would be a good example.
Asthma On The Rise: 25 Million In The U.S. Affected
If asthma sometimes seems to be everywhere, it's not exactly your imagination.
Federal health officials estimate nearly 1 in 12 Americans, or nearly 25 million people have the respiratory disorder. That works out to 8.2 percent of the population in 2009, the latest year covered by the research
I have vacationed many times in a remote part of the Big Island of Hawaii. In an area called Kapoho. The next door neighbor to the house we rent there is an engineer that travels the World testing the air. He told me that the spot we were standing on has the cleanest air on the populated parts of the planet. Look at the map and you will see the reason. Nothing but ocean for 2500 miles with the prevailing winds coming off the Pacific Ocean. That was why he bought there. It would be my choice if we were not so entrenched in So CA.
Gary says, "So maybe it never was the diesel smoke causing lung related diseases."
Puh-Leeze. There are hundreds if not thousands of medical studies which clearly indicate and PROVE the health issues caused by diesel exhaust. I have posted several of them over the years, and you know it.
CAUSES OF ASTHMA Some people think there is only one cause of asthma symptoms. But actually, asthma symptoms have two main causes, and both occur within the airways of your lungs: AIRWAY CONSTRICTION This is the cause of asthma symptoms that you may feel as a tightening in your chest. The muscles around the airways of your lungs squeeze together or tighten. This tightening is often called "bronchoconstriction," and it can make it hard for you to breathe. INFLAMMATION This is the cause of asthma symptoms you probably do not notice. If you have asthma, the airways of your lungs are always inflamed, and they become more swollen and irritated when your asthma symptoms worsen. Inflammation can reduce the amount of air that you can take in or breathe out. In some cases, too much thick mucus is produced, which further obstructs the airways. Together, airway constriction and inflammation narrow your airways, which can result in wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath—likely familiar feelings to you. And in people with asthma, the airways may be inflamed even when they are not having symptoms.
Um, maybe because we don't 100% know all the causes and risk factors for lung diseases?
And I don't know how "pollution worldwide" can possibly be down. With the Chinese polluting unmitigatedly, more cars on the road every year (albeit many of them cleaner), and the onward march of technology and manufacturing, I can't see how it would be down.
If anyone had the reasons for it, we could start preventing it. There are many things beyond our understanding.
Puh-Leeze. There are hundreds if not thousands of medical studies which clearly indicate and PROVE the health issues caused by diesel exhaust.
I will not deny that diesel exhaust just like gasoline exhaust can cause health problems. If you have read a lot about Asthma you know that doctors and scientists are still baffled by the ailment. It is easily treatable, not easy to pinpoint the cause. Claiming it is diesel exhaust is just not a viable or provable argument when the data is looked at.
And I don't know how "pollution worldwide" can possibly be down.
It probably is not. Yet you believe it is OK, to pollute China to justify our desires to have alternative energy sources, such as hybrids and wind generators.
If you were keeping up with the thread you would know I was responding to the following quote. Which you seem to have issue with. It was not mine. It is from the American Lung Association.
"The progress the nation has made in cleaning up coal-fired power plants, diesel emissions and other pollution sources has drastically cut dangerous pollution from the air we breathe," said Lung Association President Charles Connor in a statement."
ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2007) — Diesel exhaust fumes on polluted streets have a measurable effect on people with asthma, according to the first study looking at exhausts and asthma in a real-life setting, published on 6 December in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The new study looked at the effects on 60 people with mild and moderate asthma of walking along the western end of busy Oxford Street in London, where only diesel-powered taxis and buses are permitted. The researchers, from Imperial College London, the New Jersey School of Public Health, and other international institutions, found that both during and after a two hour walk along Oxford Street, the test volunteers experienced increased asthmatic symptoms, reduced lung capacity, and inflammation in the lungs. It took a few hours for these to return to their normal levels. The researchers confirmed their results by comparing how the same people were affected by a two hour walk in the traffic-free, western part of London's Hyde Park. Here, the volunteers experienced some of the same problems but to a far lesser degree. This is the first study to investigate in a real-life setting, outside of the laboratory, if traffic fumes make symptoms worse for people with asthma. Two thirds of people with asthma believe this to be the case, according to Asthma UK. The researchers believe that diesel exhausts cause problems for people with asthma because of the particulates - minute particles of dust, dirt, soot and smoke - which they release into the air. Particulates come in different sizes but those of less than 2.5 microns, and the tiniest "ultra fine" ones, can interfere with the respiratory system, because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply into the lungs. Ultra fine particles can also be absorbed in the blood, which may have damaging effects
There is even evidence to suggest that diesel MAY "cause" asthma in otherwise healthy people, although this has not been proven true.
Just accept that diesel exhaust is dangerous to asthmatics as a fact of life, which it is.
That may be true as is many US cities. My suggestion to you is get out of Phoenix as soon as you can if clean air is important to you and your children. It does not look like your owning a hybrid has improved the air quality much in Phoenix.
The worst three for ozone pollution were Los Angeles, Bakersfield and Visalia, all in California. Bakersfield and fellow California city Fresno, along with Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had the most short-term particle pollution, while Bakersfield, Los Angeles and Phoenix had the worst year-round particle pollution.
Phoenix has always had desert dust. It is the combination of pollen and people pollution that has changed Phoenix from one of the healthiest climates to one of the 3 worst in the USA.
The infinitesimal number of diesel cars in Phoenix are not the problem. Maybe diesel buses and trucks add a good amount. Though I would think that should have gone way down with the advent of ULSD.
...is why so many folks lump "Diesel Exhaust" into one large collective bin. The reality is that "Diesel Exhaust" can be broken out into many categories, and the category occupied by late model diesel cars provides a mere fraction of the harmful exhaust contributed by the oil burning machines and plants of the world.
When someone says, "Diesel Exhaust is a primary cause of Asthma", I take comments like that two ways: 1) Exhaust from oil burning machines and plants is a contributing factor in the increase in Asthma cases world-wide. 2) Exhaust from modern diesel cars sold in the U.S.A and Canada (the main topic of this thread I might add) running on ULSD have yet to be proven to be more harmful and more causal vis-à-vis asthma sufferers than modern automobiles, and I dare say never will be.
It is also amazing that with our passenger vehicle fleet being 98% run on RUG to PUG, that the implication is RUG to PUG does not play any part in asthma and/or other respiratory or allergy's. Indeed most allergies are caused by good old fashioned NATURAL plants (plant sex actually) Indeed if you even go to an allergist they do not even TEST for ULSD !!!! Why because the odds are preposterously LOW.
So when are we banning plant sex? When are we banning plant sex that causes the most allergies?
The asthma and car connection (Yahoo Green). Both fuels cause ozone, which aggravates asthma. Diesel soot aggravates asthma. Diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma.
You point about addressing all sources is well taken.
Is allergen exposure the major primary cause of asthma? Pearce N, Douwes J, Beasley R. Source Wellington Asthma Research Group, Wellington School of Medicine, PO Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand. Abstract In recent decades a number of authors have argued that allergen exposure is the major primary cause of asthma, and that the global increases in asthma prevalence are due to increases in exposure to aeroallergens. We have assessed the epidemiological evidence in support of this hypothesis. No longitudinal studies were identified in which allergen exposure during infancy in a random population sample has been related to asthma risk after the age of six years. Two studies have been conducted in selected populations chosen on the basis of a family history of asthma or allergy; one study found a non-statistically significant association whereas the other study found no association. Many of the identified prevalence studies in children showed negative associations between allergen exposure and current asthma, and the weighted averages of the population attributable risks in children were 4% for Der p 1, 11% for Fel d 1, -4% for Bla g 2, and 6% for Can f 1. There was little change in these estimates in studies in which children whose parents had adopted allergen avoidance measures were excluded. Furthermore, evidence from population studies is equivocal and provides little consistent evidence that allergen exposure is associated with the prevalence of asthma at the population level. Population-based cohort studies are clearly required, but currently available evidence does not indicate that allergen exposure is a major risk factor for the primary causation of asthma in children.
You know I have to scratch my head here a little. They even cite in the abstract there are no LONGITUDINAL studies conducted on the specfici subject. ...No longitudinal studies were identified in which allergen exposure during infancy in a random population sample has been related to asthma risk after the age of six years."
Simply amazing when what they are trying to hypothesize and or test ARE the longevity factors!!!!????
Again the nexus of this: allergies do not only start up and or end etc in infancy.
That Yahoo! blog entry suffers from the same generalizations as many other dissertations on this subject, namely "Diesel Exhaust/Diesel Soot" causes blah-blah-blah...
Soot is a fact of life; always has been. It is a near certainty that the human body, specifically the lungs, has a built in tolerance for soot up to some arbitrary threshold (which most likely changes from one person to the next and even changes for one person with relative changes to their health). For articles like the one referenced above to gain any credibility, hard and fast exposure levels need to be established for both short term and long term exposure, and then said levels need to be correlated with the measured output of various exhaust producing devices as well as the duration said output lasts in the environment.
Personally I would venture to say that a modern diesel car running on ULSD is less likely to be a contributing factor to asthma than is a roughly similar car running on gasoline. I may be wrong, but that's my gut guess.
You could be right just on the sheer numbers, at least in the US. The UK studies probably show a more clear diesel connection since about half their passenger cars are diesel.
I will give you one guess why a study on RUG to PUG specifically and RUG to PUG vs ULSD has never been done.
Now on another vein, there are those that have chosen to commit suicide by breathing tailpipe exhause RUG to PUG. I really don't know of any study where the subject actually called for/chose and or used a ULSD TDI.
The UK studies probably show a more clear diesel connection since about half their passenger cars are diesel.
True, but last time I checked the diesel cars available in England cannot meet the CARB emissions standards which all Diesel cars sold in the U.S. and Canada meet. Said another way, the diesels we can buy here and the fuel we run them on is cleaner than anything the folks in England can buy. Yes, no?
Yeah, and I hope it stays that way. Well really, I hope the UK can catch up. Something like one in seven kids in the UK have asthma. Some research points to pollution as being the main cause.
Personally I would venture to say that a modern diesel car running on ULSD is less likely to be a contributing factor to asthma than is a roughly similar car running on gasoline.
I think that can be somewhat proven by this study. When you look at the different elements in our air these 3 are considered strong culprits. Nox, CO and O3 (ozone). A Prius for example will put out almost twice the CO of a VW TDI. While the diesel VW will put out more Nox. CO the odorless killer is rarely addressed by those that prefer gasoline as their poison of choice.
To assess the effect of air pollutants on the risk of asthma among school children, a nationwide cross sectional study of 32,672 Taiwanese school children was conducted in 2001.
Methods: Routine air pollution monitoring data for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less (PM10) were used. Information on individual characteristics and indoor environments was from a parent administered questionnaire (response rate 93%). The exposure parameters were calculated using the mean of the 2000 monthly averages. The effect estimates were presented as odds ratios (ORs) per 10 ppb changes for SO2, NOx, and O3, 100 ppb changes for CO, and 10 μg/m3 changes for PM10.
Results: In a two stage hierarchical model adjusting for confounding, the risk of childhood asthma was positively associated with O3 (adjusted OR 1.138, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.001 to 1.293), CO (adjusted OR 1.045, 95% CI 1.017 to 1.074), and NOx (adjusted OR 1.005, 95% CI 0.954 to 1.117). Against our prior hypothesis, the risk of childhood asthma was weakly or not related to SO2 (adjusted OR 0.874, 95% CI 0.729 to 1.054) and PM10 (adjusted OR 0.934, 95% CI 0.909 to 0.960).
Conclusions: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that long term exposure to traffic related outdoor air pollutants such as NOx, CO, and O3 increases the risk of asthma in children.
Perhaps to round out the real questions, what percentage of the passenger vehicle fleet are RUG to PUG and ULSD?. What percentage of so called asthmatic children are asthmatic due to good old fashioned plant sex and cigarette smog? Cigarette and or second hand smoke is much GREATER than say in America. I do not know the percentage of smoking Americans vs Taiwanese.
My wife likes the Beetle. It looks like it will come with the 2.0L TDI in the USA. Unfortunately only the Europeans get the more economical 1.6L TDI. Unless someone offers a CUV/SUV with a 4 cylinder diesel before this baby hits the showrooms. We may have one in the garage for all our errands and running around.
That is one interesting angle, diesels are capable (VW TDI's specifically) of almost some insanely HIGH MPG. Normally those mpgs are easily 20-40% over and above gassers.
Now that is for sure !! I have only had snippets or glimpses of 62 mpg, which is not even close to 90+ mph. I thought @ 62 mpg I was "hypermiling"... NOT !!!
That's for sure. I think one of their rules should state that hyper-miling all downhill runs is not allowed. i.e. if you get 99 mpg going downhill with the clutch in while idling for 5 miles, then you must also climb a hill for 5 miles. Then dab the tests with honesty, and I don't think you would see any figures above 60 or so.
I used to see those kind of mileage claims on the Prius website also. I know there are people that squeeze a lot of miles out of a vehicle. We had a regular poster Wayne Gerdes that could get close to 60 MPG from an Accord and 35 MPG our of a Ford Ranger. It can be done. His were all verified by several publications. So I just accept what people claim and try to get what I can from whatever I drive without holding up traffic. I would be tickled with a full sized SUV that gets 30 MPG out on the highway. There are several now to choose from. Just deciding which one after I sell our Sequoia to the granddaughter.
This is not to get redundant, but I ran a depreciation and fuel cost comparison (per mile driven and @ like miles, 120,000, but with current fuel prices) between a 04 Civic/03 Jetta TDI.
03 Jetta TDI dep .04375/fuel .0906 cents=.13435 cents
So as you can see the Civic COSTs slightly more (+7.7%) however the thing that really gets "lost" if you will (due to massively higher diesel prices/taxes) in this comparison is the fact the Civic uses +31.5% more fuel !!!!!
Realistically the diesel (unavailable in the US markets) Civic would have beat the stuffing out of the gasser 04 Civic gasser (52 to 56 mpg vs 38-42 mpg), just as the Jetta TDI does with its stable mates, 1.8 T and 2.0 engines.
A fair question and a fair response. It is even based on a fair assumption. I really have to admit I was surprised at the Civic's residual value on Edmunds.com. Now I do not know if that is high or low, based in this particualr region. But IF I sell it for those prices, then the loss is -32.3% of the PP.
So to me, the important part is the (100 k/110k/120k) cycles one can get. One cycle (2nd 110,120,000) I know has prepaid costs of app $935./120,000=).0077916 cents per mile driven. One will of course experience UNscheduled maintenance items. This is compared against VW Jetta TDI 600./120,000= .005 cents per mile driven. The Civic @ like miles costs 56% MORE !
I just executed (DIY) a 160,000 mile scheduled maintenance interval on the 03 Jetta TDI, during an absolutely glorious 70 degree May day (no emergency signal here) The F/R pads STILL look good to go to (a swagged) 250,000 miles.
So they have proven that an area with primarily diesel traffic is worse than one with no traffic, it doesn't prove that it is worse than an area with primarily gasoline traffic. There is a lot of dust put into the air by any traffic which I am sure doesn't help with these ailments either. I am not saying that the diesel doesn't hurt just that the study is incomplete.
Almost any (American) longitudinal study is of NON ULSD and the lack of mitigation during the times NON ULSD was in use. In this country, ULSD was mandated in Oct 2006. Keep in mind also of the passenger fleet of 258.4 M vehicles passenger diesels are less than one half of 1% @ 1.272 M (.0049226) It is also probably more fair to say there are many more "unmitigated" RUG to PUG generators than the total diesel passenger car fleet.
It is funny they have not cited European studies as ULSD has been around FAR longer The ULSD passenger vehicle fleet is app 50% and growing.
The one difference is the US emissions folks allege the diesels standards have ALWAYS been tighter here. The nexus is the "lesser health risk". It is a huge economic hurdle to overcome. This can easily add oem costs of 1,000 to 5,000 dollars.
From what I am reading the 2012 Newest Beetle (The Beetle) will be built with two diesel options. The one for the EU will be a 1.6L TDI rated at a combined 4.3L/100 KM. We get the current 2.0L TDI with the same goofy EPA rating of 33 MPG combined. So are we that flush with fuel in the USA that we don't need a vehicle that is rated 53 Miles per US gallon? It would seem that way.
• April 2011 ranks as the best-ever April sales in Audi of America history; also represents fourth consecutive month of record-setting achievements.
• Audi A3 sales increase by 11.5% year-to-date from same period in 2010. • TDI clean diesel technology represented in 61% of total A3 sales for April.
• Audi Q7 sales up 24.2% for April YOY. • TDI clean diesel technology represented in 47% of total Q7 sales for April.
Those are higher than EU percentages. Who said people would not buy diesels if offered? I would bet Audi wishes they had diesels for all their models.
Percentage wise, these two Audi models further demonstrates the TDI's "viability". The VW Golf TDI posted @ 56%. Toureage @ 56%, with 22% over all TDI sales @ 256,830=56,503 units. They did not detail the % of TDI JSW's. I have read in passing it was something on the order of 75% TDI. 2010 sales
To put this in a more macro perspective, it is very obvious there are still huge hurdles for diesel cars in the US. So for example Edmunds.com lists 22 models as diesels. I have taken the liberty to "discount" 9 models (small trucks- but really small to really LARGE "small trucks") This would leave a passenger car field of 13 models.
So if what the host has said is true (585 models/22) then the percentage of diesel models is less than .0376%. If you just concentrate on diesel passenger cars (a few SUV's included) then you are talking less than .0222%.
Comments
I heard on some cable TV news channel that BO, POTUS called a few of the oil producing Arab states to get them to produce MORE, given the price rising for both the barrel and 36 consecutive @ the USA pumps' increases, probably as a shoot yourself in the foot, loss of Libya oil production.
So on the one hand they tell us to conserve and when the price goes wild they call the producers to tell em to produce more. SNAFU.
Your fuel bill is going up whether you use gasoline or diesel (not to mention the price of everything else).
Right and so using a car like a diesel (like for like) using 20-40 % less is really not a big deal either?
Truthfull after app 182,000 miles of diesel operation it is pretty seamless and effortless.
People still look funny at me when I tell them after driving the TDI hard, that I only get 49 mpg. Drives the Prius folks crazy when I tell them if I drove the Prius like you have to to get 50 mpg, I can easily post 56 to 60 mpg in the TDI. In truth I really try to avoid those types of discussions.
My wife and I can carpool somewhere and halve our gas bill. My cereal and new sneakers have to ride the semi.
Green claims of diesel cars disputed (Reuters)
And:
Honolulu has best air in U.S (Reuters)
"The progress the nation has made in cleaning up coal-fired power plants, diesel emissions and other pollution sources has drastically cut dangerous pollution from the air we breathe," said Lung Association President Charles Connor in a statement."
So, if the air we are breathing is cleaner why the rise in breathing ailments. One theory is we do not exercise our lungs enough. Kids in 1950 spent 20 hours per day indoors. In 2000 they spent 23.5 hours per day indoors. So maybe it never was the diesel smoke causing lung related diseases. Just a handy scapegoat. Most I have read is it is not what you smell that is causing the problems. CO would be a good example.
Asthma On The Rise: 25 Million In The U.S. Affected
If asthma sometimes seems to be everywhere, it's not exactly your imagination.
Federal health officials estimate nearly 1 in 12 Americans, or nearly 25 million people have the respiratory disorder. That works out to 8.2 percent of the population in 2009, the latest year covered by the research
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/01/13/132885149/asthma-on-the-rise-25-milli- on-in-the-u-s-affected
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr032.pdf
Where is the cleanest air????
I have vacationed many times in a remote part of the Big Island of Hawaii. In an area called Kapoho. The next door neighbor to the house we rent there is an engineer that travels the World testing the air. He told me that the spot we were standing on has the cleanest air on the populated parts of the planet. Look at the map and you will see the reason. Nothing but ocean for 2500 miles with the prevailing winds coming off the Pacific Ocean. That was why he bought there. It would be my choice if we were not so entrenched in So CA.
My favorite vacation home.
http://www.vrbo.com/5124
Puh-Leeze. There are hundreds if not thousands of medical studies which clearly indicate and PROVE the health issues caused by diesel exhaust. I have posted several of them over the years, and you know it.
Let's not try to be flip about it.
Some people think there is only one cause of asthma symptoms. But actually, asthma symptoms have two main causes, and both occur within the airways of your lungs:
AIRWAY CONSTRICTION
This is the cause of asthma symptoms that you may feel as a tightening in your chest. The muscles around the airways of your lungs squeeze together or tighten. This tightening is often called "bronchoconstriction," and it can make it hard for you to breathe.
INFLAMMATION
This is the cause of asthma symptoms you probably do not notice. If you have asthma, the airways of your lungs are always inflamed, and they become more swollen and irritated when your asthma symptoms worsen. Inflammation can reduce the amount of air that you can take in or breathe out. In some cases, too much thick mucus is produced, which further obstructs the airways.
Together, airway constriction and inflammation narrow your airways, which can result in wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath—likely familiar feelings to you. And in people with asthma, the airways may be inflamed even when they are not having symptoms.
And I don't know how "pollution worldwide" can possibly be down. With the Chinese polluting unmitigatedly, more cars on the road every year (albeit many of them cleaner), and the onward march of technology and manufacturing, I can't see how it would be down.
If anyone had the reasons for it, we could start preventing it. There are many things beyond our understanding.
I will not deny that diesel exhaust just like gasoline exhaust can cause health problems. If you have read a lot about Asthma you know that doctors and scientists are still baffled by the ailment. It is easily treatable, not easy to pinpoint the cause. Claiming it is diesel exhaust is just not a viable or provable argument when the data is looked at.
It probably is not. Yet you believe it is OK, to pollute China to justify our desires to have alternative energy sources, such as hybrids and wind generators.
If you were keeping up with the thread you would know I was responding to the following quote. Which you seem to have issue with. It was not mine. It is from the American Lung Association.
"The progress the nation has made in cleaning up coal-fired power plants, diesel emissions and other pollution sources has drastically cut dangerous pollution from the air we breathe," said Lung Association President Charles Connor in a statement."
The soot/PM increase the inflammation of the tissue, which exacerbates the symptoms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071205190853.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2007) — Diesel exhaust fumes on polluted streets have a measurable effect on people with asthma, according to the first study looking at exhausts and asthma in a real-life setting, published on 6 December in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The new study looked at the effects on 60 people with mild and moderate asthma of walking along the western end of busy Oxford Street in London, where only diesel-powered taxis and buses are permitted.
The researchers, from Imperial College London, the New Jersey School of Public Health, and other international institutions, found that both during and after a two hour walk along Oxford Street, the test volunteers experienced increased asthmatic symptoms, reduced lung capacity, and inflammation in the lungs. It took a few hours for these to return to their normal levels.
The researchers confirmed their results by comparing how the same people were affected by a two hour walk in the traffic-free, western part of London's Hyde Park. Here, the volunteers experienced some of the same problems but to a far lesser degree.
This is the first study to investigate in a real-life setting, outside of the laboratory, if traffic fumes make symptoms worse for people with asthma. Two thirds of people with asthma believe this to be the case, according to Asthma UK.
The researchers believe that diesel exhausts cause problems for people with asthma because of the particulates - minute particles of dust, dirt, soot and smoke - which they release into the air. Particulates come in different sizes but those of less than 2.5 microns, and the tiniest "ultra fine" ones, can interfere with the respiratory system, because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply into the lungs. Ultra fine particles can also be absorbed in the blood, which may have damaging effects
There is even evidence to suggest that diesel MAY "cause" asthma in otherwise healthy people, although this has not been proven true.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020213b.asp
So let's not get on this broken record.
Just accept that diesel exhaust is dangerous to asthmatics as a fact of life, which it is.
I said "WORLDWIDE" and the lung fellow is talking about the "USA."
There is no doubt that the air in the USA is cleaner due to our anti-pollution efforts.
But we, being such a small piece of the planet, cannot cut "worldwide" pollution by ourselves.
Anything we can do to help, HELPS.
That may be true as is many US cities. My suggestion to you is get out of Phoenix as soon as you can if clean air is important to you and your children. It does not look like your owning a hybrid has improved the air quality much in Phoenix.
The worst three for ozone pollution were Los Angeles, Bakersfield and Visalia, all in California. Bakersfield and fellow California city Fresno, along with Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had the most short-term particle pollution, while Bakersfield, Los Angeles and Phoenix had the worst year-round particle pollution.
The infinitesimal number of diesel cars in Phoenix are not the problem. Maybe diesel buses and trucks add a good amount. Though I would think that should have gone way down with the advent of ULSD.
When someone says, "Diesel Exhaust is a primary cause of Asthma", I take comments like that two ways:
1) Exhaust from oil burning machines and plants is a contributing factor in the increase in Asthma cases world-wide.
2) Exhaust from modern diesel cars sold in the U.S.A and Canada (the main topic of this thread I might add) running on ULSD have yet to be proven to be more harmful and more causal vis-à-vis asthma sufferers than modern automobiles, and I dare say never will be.
Donning my nomex suit and ducking for cover.
I don't think that's true, and it has not been proven, so, with a grain of sodium shall it be taken.... :shades:
So when are we banning plant sex? When are we banning plant sex that causes the most allergies?
The asthma and car connection (Yahoo Green). Both fuels cause ozone, which aggravates asthma. Diesel soot aggravates asthma. Diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma.
You point about addressing all sources is well taken.
Here is a 2000 study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770825
Is allergen exposure the major primary cause of asthma?
Pearce N, Douwes J, Beasley R.
Source
Wellington Asthma Research Group, Wellington School of Medicine, PO Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand.
Abstract
In recent decades a number of authors have argued that allergen exposure is the major primary cause of asthma, and that the global increases in asthma prevalence are due to increases in exposure to aeroallergens. We have assessed the epidemiological evidence in support of this hypothesis. No longitudinal studies were identified in which allergen exposure during infancy in a random population sample has been related to asthma risk after the age of six years. Two studies have been conducted in selected populations chosen on the basis of a family history of asthma or allergy; one study found a non-statistically significant association whereas the other study found no association. Many of the identified prevalence studies in children showed negative associations between allergen exposure and current asthma, and the weighted averages of the population attributable risks in children were 4% for Der p 1, 11% for Fel d 1, -4% for Bla g 2, and 6% for Can f 1. There was little change in these estimates in studies in which children whose parents had adopted allergen avoidance measures were excluded. Furthermore, evidence from population studies is equivocal and provides little consistent evidence that allergen exposure is associated with the prevalence of asthma at the population level. Population-based cohort studies are clearly required, but currently available evidence does not indicate that allergen exposure is a major risk factor for the primary causation of asthma in children.
Simply amazing when what they are trying to hypothesize and or test ARE the longevity factors!!!!????
Again the nexus of this: allergies do not only start up and or end etc in infancy.
Soot is a fact of life; always has been. It is a near certainty that the human body, specifically the lungs, has a built in tolerance for soot up to some arbitrary threshold (which most likely changes from one person to the next and even changes for one person with relative changes to their health). For articles like the one referenced above to gain any credibility, hard and fast exposure levels need to be established for both short term and long term exposure, and then said levels need to be correlated with the measured output of various exhaust producing devices as well as the duration said output lasts in the environment.
Personally I would venture to say that a modern diesel car running on ULSD is less likely to be a contributing factor to asthma than is a roughly similar car running on gasoline. I may be wrong, but that's my gut guess.
You could be right just on the sheer numbers, at least in the US. The UK studies probably show a more clear diesel connection since about half their passenger cars are diesel.
Now on another vein, there are those that have chosen to commit suicide by breathing tailpipe exhause RUG to PUG. I really don't know of any study where the subject actually called for/chose and or used a ULSD TDI.
True, but last time I checked the diesel cars available in England cannot meet the CARB emissions standards which all Diesel cars sold in the U.S. and Canada meet. Said another way, the diesels we can buy here and the fuel we run them on is cleaner than anything the folks in England can buy. Yes, no?
I think that can be somewhat proven by this study. When you look at the different elements in our air these 3 are considered strong culprits. Nox, CO and O3 (ozone). A Prius for example will put out almost twice the CO of a VW TDI. While the diesel VW will put out more Nox. CO the odorless killer is rarely addressed by those that prefer gasoline as their poison of choice.
To assess the effect of air pollutants on the risk of asthma among school children, a nationwide cross sectional study of 32,672 Taiwanese school children was conducted in 2001.
Methods: Routine air pollution monitoring data for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less (PM10) were used. Information on individual characteristics and indoor environments was from a parent administered questionnaire (response rate 93%). The exposure parameters were calculated using the mean of the 2000 monthly averages. The effect estimates were presented as odds ratios (ORs) per 10 ppb changes for SO2, NOx, and O3, 100 ppb changes for CO, and 10 μg/m3 changes for PM10.
Results: In a two stage hierarchical model adjusting for confounding, the risk of childhood asthma was positively associated with O3 (adjusted OR 1.138, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.001 to 1.293), CO (adjusted OR 1.045, 95% CI 1.017 to 1.074), and NOx (adjusted OR 1.005, 95% CI 0.954 to 1.117). Against our prior hypothesis, the risk of childhood asthma was weakly or not related to SO2 (adjusted OR 0.874, 95% CI 0.729 to 1.054) and PM10 (adjusted OR 0.934, 95% CI 0.909 to 0.960).
Conclusions: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that long term exposure to traffic related outdoor air pollutants such as NOx, CO, and O3 increases the risk of asthma in children.
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/60/6/467.abstract
I found it interesting that Sulfur Dioxide was not found to be a problem. That is what Coal generators are famous for.
Love those VW seats.
Then dab the tests with honesty, and I don't think you would see any figures above 60 or so.
Sam
It is of course an apples to oranges comparison.
04 Civic depreciation .0338666/fuel .1107931= .1446597 cents
03 Jetta TDI dep .04375/fuel .0906 cents=.13435 cents
So as you can see the Civic COSTs slightly more (+7.7%) however the thing that really gets "lost" if you will (due to massively higher diesel prices/taxes) in this comparison is the fact the Civic uses +31.5% more fuel !!!!!
Realistically the diesel (unavailable in the US markets) Civic would have beat the stuffing out of the gasser 04 Civic gasser (52 to 56 mpg vs 38-42 mpg), just as the Jetta TDI does with its stable mates, 1.8 T and 2.0 engines.
You would be real lucky to get $2500. Any extra you spend on a diesel car will be returned when you sell it. With interest.
So to me, the important part is the (100 k/110k/120k) cycles one can get. One cycle (2nd 110,120,000) I know has prepaid costs of app $935./120,000=).0077916 cents per mile driven. One will of course experience UNscheduled maintenance items. This is compared against VW Jetta TDI 600./120,000= .005 cents per mile driven. The Civic @ like miles costs 56% MORE !
I just executed (DIY) a 160,000 mile scheduled maintenance interval on the 03 Jetta TDI, during an absolutely glorious 70 degree May day (no emergency signal here) The F/R pads STILL look good to go to (a swagged) 250,000 miles.
It is funny they have not cited European studies as ULSD has been around FAR longer The ULSD passenger vehicle fleet is app 50% and growing.
The one difference is the US emissions folks allege the diesels standards have ALWAYS been tighter here. The nexus is the "lesser health risk". It is a huge economic hurdle to overcome. This can easily add oem costs of 1,000 to 5,000 dollars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ulbjaKmKG0
..."in this comparison is the fact the Civic uses +31.5% more fuel !!!!! "...
It is also fair to say that Honda Civic is considered one of the PREMIER economy cars in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Audi A3 sales increase by 11.5% year-to-date from same period in 2010.
• TDI clean diesel technology represented in 61% of total A3 sales for April.
• Audi Q7 sales up 24.2% for April YOY.
• TDI clean diesel technology represented in 47% of total Q7 sales for April.
Those are higher than EU percentages. Who said people would not buy diesels if offered? I would bet Audi wishes they had diesels for all their models.
So if what the host has said is true (585 models/22) then the percentage of diesel models is less than .0376%. If you just concentrate on diesel passenger cars (a few SUV's included) then you are talking less than .0222%.