Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/FREE/60828027/1041/P- ROMOBLOG01
M
Do the research yourself, but here's a starting point:
The components of gasoline exhaust(GE) emissions are a public concern for the following reasons:
Emissions from gasoline engines include over 40 substances that are listed by the EPA as hazardous air pollutants. Components of GE contain potential cancer causing substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and PAHs. The gasoline particulate matter (GPM) is very small (90% are less than 1um by mass), making GPM easy to respire into the deep lung. GPM has hundreds of chemicals adsorbed to their surfaces, including many known or suspected carcinogens. There are many irritants and toxic chemicals in the gaseous phase of GE. Oxides of nitrogen, component of urban smog, are in the gaseous phase of GE. There is a likelihood that people in both ambient and occupational settings can be exposed to GE. GE has the potential to cause adverse health effects including cancer, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Studies show workers exposed to higher levels of GE are more likely to develop lung cancer. In 1990, the state of California identified GE as a chemical known to cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that GE probably causes cancer in humans. The EPA has proposed classifying GE as a probable human carcinogen.
Acute Effects of Gasoline Emmission Exposure:
Workers exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust have reported the following short-term health symptoms:
irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,
lightheadedness,
heartburn,
headache,
weakness, numbness, and tingling in extremities,
chest tightness,
wheezing, and
vomiting.
Substitute gasoline for diesel in larsb anti-diesel statement and you come to the very true, factual conclusion that gasoline emissions cause adverse health effects and cancer and driving a gasoline engine car is the single most polluting action that most individual do.
EPA states that gasoline emissions cause 1500 cases of cancer a year
I'm not saying that diesel exhaust is harmless - I'm just saying the medical community KNOWS that gasoline emissions cause far more death and disease.
Actually, you are using opinion and you are using opinions that are based on emissions that were produced 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago......without considering the advances in pollution control and resulting lower emissions of diesel engines and for that matter gasoline engines.
The "sky is falling" scare tactics used by anti-diesel activists (which for some strange reason seem to be 95% hybrid drivers and 5% enviro chain themselves to a tree wackos) fails to evaluate the dangers of gasoline and diesel emissions based on risk.
Water is toxic if you consume too much with symptoms of drowsy, lightheaded and weak with convulsions, coma and death the end result. Should water be banned in the CARB emissions states?
As ridiculous as this would be, I find the same ridiculous statements about diesel exhaust being used.
The "sky is falling" scare tactics used by anti-diesel activists (which for some strange reason seem to be 95% hybrid drivers and 5% enviro chain themselves to a tree wackos) fails to evaluate the dangers of gasoline and diesel emissions based on risk.
Water is toxic if you consume too much with symptoms of drowsy, lightheaded and weak with convulsions, coma and death the end result. Should water be banned in the CARB emissions states?
As ridiculous as this would be, I find the same ridiculous statements about diesel exhaust being used.
two absolutely ridiculous, head-in-the-sand comments in just two days by two different pro-diesel guys
makes the reasonable pro-diesel guys look like maroons for not distancing themselves from such nonesense
yeah, water and diesel emissions - there's a good analogy!!
It is a good correspondence in some respects between two otherwise unlike things.
two absolutely ridiculous, head-in-the-sand comments in just two days by two different pro-diesel guys
So you are saying that larsb is pro-diesel. :P
Did you know you can obtain diesel from a tree?
diesel tree
What is a maroon alert? Is it the same as an orange alert?
Well, i don't know who these anti-diesel activists are, but i would be curious to see how you derived these statistics. The tree-chaining community is pretty orthagonal to the public health community.
In any case, i'm itching to get a 335d here in the US. HOWEVER, every morning when i'm waiting for my train to work, several semis drive by belching thick black smoke that often washes over the platform.
I'm concerned about resources and foreign oil, but i also try to not breathe that stuff in!
dave
[eye roll
The lead is in the gasoline, not in the diesel fuel.
Even today, even in California, aviation gasoline is STILL leaded. Why does EPA not require the use of unleaded fuel? :confuse:
Where is the data? Where is the proof?
This discredits larsb's statement.
Surprisingly little information is available regarding the comparative health hazards of emissions from diesel and gasoline engines
But the worse news is that they are not selling diesels in America now and won't until WE get the low diesel fuel in our tanks. He would take my 500 bucks to put my name on the waiting list for when the clean diesel comes out.???
And even then the choices have dropped to just the Jetta... that's the only one they will be selling he said.
So, IF the amount of emissions from diesels can be reduced to the levels of a normal gasser. then it SUGGESTS that the health hazards would be similar.
SUGGESTS being the key word. And since we do not YET HAVE SUCH DIESELS, testing cannot be done.
Let me know when they have a diesel vehicle clean enough to compare, which they apparently did not have.
Diesel exhaust contains 20-100 times more particles than gasoline exhaust. These particles carry absorbed cancer causing substances known as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)’s.
The gases in diesel exhaust can also create health problems. The top eight are listed here:
* nitrous oxide
* nitrogen dioxide
* formaldehyde
* benzene
* sulfur dioxide
* hydrogen sulfide
* carbon dioxide
* carbon monoxide.
Diesel exhaust contains several dozen toxic substances and scientific studies have shown that workers exposed to diesel exhaust are more likely to develop lung cancer. Long-term exposure to particles in diesel exhaust poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated by OEHHA. ARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles. The microscopic particles making up diesel exhaust particulate matter are less than one-fifth the thickness of a human hair. They are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, where they can contribute to respiratory disease.
I know it's because you can't stand to see nonesense on these message boards, but guys who make such comments are a complete waste of your time. At least some of the pro-diesel guys here recognize that there ARE issues.
Why isn't anyone talking about the ULSD actually becoming available in Cali?
I thought by June 2006 ULSD was sanctioned to be everywhere?
Was it Oct 1st?
:-)
I dunno about the ULSD - I just saw a news article last night that it will be on the street in Cali. by the end of this week
I don't suffer from daily air quality issues, but the folks in Cali's central valley are really hurting. Tremendous population growth and the air just sits there. Ugh. And, to make matters worse than the LA Basin, there is a lot of agricultural emissions in the Central Valley, and I mean diesel not cows.
but we all know that gasoline engines are more toxic than diesel
[eyeroll]
http://www.westcoastdiesel.org/fuel-ulsd.htm
diesel health effects
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7-5-05-1.pdf-
Chevron and Texaco retail sites will be converted to S15 (ULSD) no later than:
o Sept. 1 for California
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A8
I agree with the excerpt below-
Calling diesel an “inherently dirty” fuel, these naysayers refuse to look beyond their outdated data on diesel emissions. This does a disservice to the environment, as clean diesel can be a large part of the solution to cleaner air.
The anti-diesel partisans also do a disservice to sound science, at times exaggerating the known dangers of diesel in order to support their agenda. No large-scale study with sound data on diesel exposure has ever been conducted. Indeed, only two studies have even purported to measure human exposure levels, and in both of those, mere guesses were made after the fact about exposure levels.
One study compared lung cancer rates among Teamsters who drove trucks and those who did not. During the time period covered by the study, most trucks on the road were fueled by gasoline, not diesel.
The second study, which focused on exposure to diesel emissions among railroad workers, was recently rated by the independent Health Effects Institute as being “of very limited utility.”
Finding answers to the questions about diesel emissions will not be easy. It will require further research, including partnerships among industry, labor, academia, and government. The largest such initiative to date--a $15 million study funded by International Truck and Engine Corporation and other engine manufacturers, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board--is now in its feasibility phase.
Diesel appears to have significant environmental advantages over other fuels, making research into its effects on human health even more important.
In research supported by International Truck and Engine, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that natural gas--frequently cited as an alternative to gasoline or diesel--may increase “ultra-fine” particulate emissions in the atmosphere. Because ultra-fine particles may penetrate more deeply than larger particles into the respiratory tract, fuels that emit ultra-fine particles may pose more of a health risk than fuels, like diesel, whose emissions are less fine.
All the studies cited are still not conclusive. Even the 2002 EPA study. The emissions are considered to be "likely carcinogenic" and even in Rats they had to use non-inhalation methods of delivery in order to demonstrate carcinogenity.
What is most disturbing is that once again the emissions of heavy duty on and off road vehicles and equipment using high sulfur diesel fuel are being used to attack extremely clean light duty vehicles and at a time when ULSD is already available in CA.
hmmmmm.....
Current tests of that approach, called Green Diesel Technology , show it has reduced particulate emissions to a level lower than EPA’s newly proposed regulations for 2007, and 50 percent below the levels achieved by the cleanest natural gas engines available today. Green Diesel engines boast hydrocarbon emissions lower than can be measured using current technology.
All of these innovations, including work done by progressive oil companies such as ARCO to provide ultra-low-sulfur fuel, would not have been possible if the country had given up on the diesel alternative.
Dismissing diesel as “dirty” without conducting the proper research is not just scientifically invalid--it’s dangerous. Such junk science has real-world implications, depriving us of new approaches to diesel that can dramatically improve public health and the environment.
I'll stick with just plain air
:-)
"likely carcinogenic" is still worse than substances that are NOT likely carcinogenic, don't ya think?
it's NOT like the drinking too much water example. Water is NOT a "likely carcinogen"
That study mentioned using truckers is a real joke. Go to a truck stop and see what percentage of truckers are smoking. Then try and figure out what problems are associated with diesel vs smoking. GEEEZE!! That's an impossible task.
Thru their junk science and outright lies they have succeeded in making me a diesel advocate. I am somewhat shocked that the people that are here really trying to educate people have the patience to deal with these folks. They are pathetic and so totally transparent!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I am VEHEMENTLY ANTI "DIRTY DIESEL"
Once they put ULSD in a clean, modern, 2008 vehicle that can sell for new in California, then I'm all for the PROVEN cleanliness of that car. But as of yet, we don't KNOW that this can be done.
The fact that VW is not selling 2007 model TDIs in the USA because they cannot meet clean air regulations should be an indicator to anyone with a brain that RIGHT NOW, 2006, DIESELS ARE NOT CLEAN ENOUGH.
Once they ARE clean enough, I'm all for them.
ULSD costlier and causes lower MPG too
One refinery had to spend $445 million to meet the clean air regulations. WHEW !!!
Until unleaded regular can meet the alternative fuels moniker as DIESEL DOES; Diesel holds the royal flush in the OIL (Texas HOLD EM poker) game.
In comparison, unleaded regular is the chink in our civilizations armor, as current events too graphically illustrate.
But be that as it may, it is still cheaper to run the diesel model vs the unleaded regular model. Using a VW Jetta diesel/gasser comparison 42/49 mpg vs 24/31 mpg and the article's cited prices of 3.21 diesel vs 2.93 unleaded regular; the costs per mile driven are .0762285/.0655102 VS .1220833/.0945161. You all can do the math to see which is cheaper to run per mile driven.
You really convinced me!
[eye roll]
you can't be an "advocate" if you don't have anything to SAY - and you haven't said anything, yet, so......
Really?
ULSD diesel, out of a pump at Citgo is "alternative fuel"?
Really? HHHHmmmmmm.....
Can you spot me a website or source other than yourself which classifies diesel an "alternative fuel?"
Really?"...
How long have you been on this thread to ask a question like that!!???
VEGGIE OIL diesel is an alternative fuel.
Standard, refined ULSD you get at Citgo is NOT an alternative fuel.
You missed the major turn backaways....
but
To follow your logic, don't buy it at Citgo.
http://dep.state.ct.us/air2/SIPRAC/2002/dhfacsh.pdf
http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/learn.php?site=0
I would reiterate that i consider myself pro-diesel. I am waiting for a diesel 3-series to be brought here to the states, and i hold stock in biodiesel. Hovever, i don't think it's legitimate to discard all negative information.
He didn't say he would keep my $500 for the 2008 models.
Gas $2.85
I live in the Chicago area.
You can pay more for diesel if you want to, you don't have to.
http://www.chicagogasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D
Cheapest unleaded regular in Chicago is $2.93
http://www.chicagogasprices.com/
USA average today:
Diesel $3.09
Reg Unleaded $2.82
http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
Diesel is NOT cheaper right now.
VW to drop TDIs for 2007 in USA
That same site you referred me too called Gas/electric hybrids "alternative fuel cars" also.
So I got a deal for you:
You call my TCH an "alt fuel vehicle" and I will call your TDI the same.
Deal?
P.S. The state of Arizona refuses to classify Hybrids as "alt fuel" vehicles and thus we cannot get the Alt Fuel plates which grant LOW registration fees and HOV access. Maybe I should point them to that link !!!
Most are stupid kids who don't have since enough to come in out of the rain.
I actually liked the Passat but they don't sell that in diesel either now. ??? In a year or so Honda and Toyota etc will come out with diesels. The emission problems will be fixed and everyone will be happy and live a happy life.
I guess I am going to have to hang on to my new diesel Chebby... till that happens. What else can you get that will pull 15,500 pounds up hill if you need to. Hopefully I will get 13 mpg or so... I will be testing it out in WVA here in a couple of weeks on I 77... in the mtns. Heck if it just makes it up a big mtn I will be happy.
And I know that if diesel is "alternative fuel" I will eat my hat.
Show me an example of any state that allows diesel cars to use an "alt fuel" license plate like the CNG vehicles use......
(waiting, waiting, waiting)
In fact, here is a list state-by-state and none of them classify straight diesel as "alt fuel" in any fashion.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8Cl_jS8L5ZsJ:eerc.ra.utk.edu/etcfc/docs/50-s- tateLegSummary.doc+%22alt+fuel%22+%22license+plates%22+%2Bdiesel+%2Bissued&hl=en- &gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1