Why always a diesel exhaust shown???

[schu777]

I was watching the news tonight - they were talking about presidents new proposal or whatever about pollution and what he wants reduced... during it, they showed a big truck exhaust - not smoking, just the exhaust... you could see the heat coming out of it... little bit of exhaust too, but not smoking like it was just taking off. Oh well, everyone can believe what they want to, but I believe that diesel exhaust is less pollution than gas... besides, the new 275 injectors just added some more smoke... hmmm... . smoke... might need more yet!



Michael

 

[nickleinonen]

the soot makes it visiable... but what they can't seem to get across is a modern full electronic diesel engine polutes less than many gasoline powered vehicles. . small things like echo's and other little cars like that i don't even count. they are like a comfortable riding golf cart as far as i see it.

 

[Rman]

the two engines produce very different emissions. The diesel has particulates which are a huge culprit for cancers and visible smog. I think the gassers pollute "worse" so to speak, but to say a diesel is better is a bit of a stretch. The low sulfur diesel push is a big ticket with the EPA and the greenies, so that is probably why they show the picture of the exhaust.



The fact is it's a problem we've known about for a decade, and the U. S. gov just chose to ignore it, mainly because of special interests (their wallets).

 

[TomGolden]

A friend of mine's ex-wife was/is an environmental chemist working for a private company in the Sacramento area. She explained to me a few years ago that diesel exhaust basically has only 1 group of pollutants, nitrogen oxides if I remember correctly and gasoline has literally hundreds of known pollutants in its exhaust.



The main reason that most un-educated people have the incorrect belief that diesel emissions are so much more "dangerous" than gasoline emissions is that the soot in diesel fuel and it's exhaust, which is mostly chemically neutral carbon and therefore harmless, is visible to the human eye, while none of the emissions from gasoline combustion are normally visible.



These folks drove Mercedes diesels, by the way



-- I love spotted owl. It tastes just like chicken!

 

[Rman]

I'm going to try and be a polite as possible here, but before you go spouting off how "un-educated" everyone is you'd better get some facts squared away.



Soot causes respiratory problems and cardiovascular problems in millions of people, and it has also been shown to be the second leading cause of global warming. Soot is a particulate and absorbs sunlight, this absorbtion radiates heat to the surrounding air. Combined with carbon dioxide that acts as a nice blanket to hold in that heat we have a bit of a problem on a global scale.



It's rather foolish to say that diesel exhaust is harmless, and that it is just a bunch of chemcially nuetral compounds "and therefore harmless".



I had to write a thesis on carbon-dioxides and global warming, which took me quite some time and countless hours of research. While researching i did come across many papers on diesel exhaust and how they got away from federal regulations for so many years because of political bias.



Just another "un-educated" point of view for you to bury in your cloud of diesel exhaust.

 

[nickleinonen]

lock your self in a sealed garage with a diesel engine running, then do the same with a gasoline engine running... . diesel will give you a headache, gasoline will kill you... . nuf said

 

[MCummings]

rhickman, as explained to me by my father, Diesel soot is a pollutant, but he says it falls back to the ground and mixes in with the dirt. Is that true? I believe it is, but wouldn't mind a researched answer.



Here is one point I firmly believe in. Diesel motors do not emit poisonous gas. I'm not saying it's not hazardous, but when was the last time you heard of somebody commiting suicide in a closed garage with their diesel truck idling away?



I can breath Diesel fumes, and I don't really mind, I don't feel like gagging, or turning away (I think it's BOMBitis), but a gassoliine motor's exhaust,, whew boy,, that's rough, I can barely stand it. Turn that stinky thing off.



Just my $. 02

Merrick Cummings Jr

 

[Rman]

Glad you brought that point up, soot does fall back to the earth, in fact it only stays airborne for a short time compared to CO, i don't have concrete numbers but i last recall readin it stays in the air around a few weeks to a few months.



CO stays MUCH longer, in the neighborhood of 50-1000 years. So logic would tell us that elminating soot would have a drastically larger effect on the global warming issue. This is the basis on the push for lower sulfur fuels. Sulfur contributes to the formation of soot.



To some people, perhaps the "un-educated" as Tom called them, removing the soot may be fruitless since it just falls back to the earth anyway. However, removing this particulate is far easier than removing CO from a gas combustion, and removing it will have an instant effect on the environment by lowering the particles radiating heat. The CO that has been made is there and will be there, reducing the quantity output will help in the long run, but more instant change can be achieved by reducing particulates.



By no means am I an environmentalist, and advocate the ludicrous claims many of them make. However, when someone claims to be the omnipotent authority on a subject by saying everyone is un-educated, and then turns around with complete false information is just wrong.



It's this ignorance and mentality that we must overcome to advance as a society. We must acknowledge that there is a problem with the way we do business and steps should be taken to help solve it. Simply saying that you can sit in garage breathing smoke from a diesel and it won't kill you (which i disagree with, ask a respiratory doctor about that one) is far from a scientific explaination as to why car exhaust is bad. Yes CO is poisionous and can kill you, well soot is a carcinogen and will kill you as well, it just takes longer... does that make it ok though?



Just a little insight for the "my engine is better than yours because it won't kill me to breathe the fumes" crowd.

 

[MCummings]

Originally posted by rhickman

Simply saying that you can sit in garage breathing smoke from a diesel and it won't kill you (which i disagree with, ask a respiratory doctor about that one) is far from a scientific explaination as to why car exhaust is bad. Yes CO is poisionous and can kill you, well soot is a carcinogen and will kill you as well, it just takes longer... does that make it ok though?

I guess it's safe to say I smoke, even though I don't physically puff a cigarette?



I got the idea that, sitting in a garage with a Diesel motor idling, is akin to puffing a strong cigarette?



thedidn'tthinkIsmoked,

Merrick Cummings Jr

 

[HoleshotHolset]

So..... what happens if you breathe the soot and drink the fuel from your engine? :-laf



Matt

 

[MCummings]

Then you could call yourself a HoleshotHolset.



Merrick Cummings Jr

 

[Rman]

hey if it's good for the engine it must be good for you right? A true power junkie at heart. I bet it would make for some good "exhaust" if you did that though.

 

[HoleshotHolset]

I suffered no immediate ill-effects after drinking about a shot of #2. It has been about 3 years since I did that..... so the long-term effects have yet to be determined. :-laf



I know someone's going to ask - it tastes just like it smells. It's very smooth... . doesn't burn your throat like liquor/gas at all. You'll be burping up the taste for a day or so, though.



Matt

 

[NETim]

Soot?

Soot is the 2nd leading cause of global warming. What's the source? I mean, what is getting the blame for this soot?



A few years back, when Mt Pinataubo in the Philliphines blew its' cork, it dumped more greenhouse gases and the like into the atmosphere than mankind has in the last 100 years. The last I heard volcanoes had been cooking off for many, many years before mankind lit his first fire and I submit that volcanoes will be blowing CO2 skyward long after we're gone.



Mother Nature manages to dump a lot of crap into the atmosphere without our help but we're supposed to drive 25 HP hybrids to atone for our sins. No sense in being stupid about things naturally, but then again there's no sense in being stupid either.



Is it any wonder people aren't buying the greenies' arguments?



Tim

 

[jrusko]

Originally posted by HoleshotHolset

I suffered no immediate ill-effects after drinking about a shot of #2. It has been about 3 years since I did that..... so the long-term effects have yet to be determined. :-laf



I know someone's going to ask - it tastes just like it smells. It's very smooth... . doesn't burn your throat like liquor/gas at all. You'll be burping up the taste for a day or so, though.



Matt

WTF? what possessed you to do that? And since you know gas burns your throat, you've done gasoline shots too? What octane?

 

[Rman]

what i was trying to get at is that soot is a pollutant that is easy to control, easy to prevent. CO2 is not. Soot is the second cause of global warming, I guess i could do a search on the internet for those of you who don't do research. I can pull up about 30 papers on it that I've read myself and give you the author's if you'd like to go to a local university and try to find them. Try doing a search in dogpile, google or yahoo and type in diesel soot and see what comes up.



Particulates heat the air(solar radiation), greenhouse gases keep it from escaping. Particulates are almost primarily generated by humans, except for the occasional volcanic eruption. Now when did this conversation get on CO2? I never mentioned it but i wrote a 100 page thesis on CO2 and the environment and am armed to the teeth if you want to challenge me on it.



I am fully aware of how much CO2 is naturally occurring, are you? I did not once mention greenhouse gases, soot and PM10 was the topic i was commenting on. A large portion is emmitted by coal burning plants and marine diesel ships because they burn the lowest grade of diesel which is heavy in soot emissions.



Are you really just going to spend the rest of your life turning your head to the obvious, do you really think the greenies are out to get you and take away all your toys? Like i stated before it is this elitist attitude that must change if anything is ever going to get any better.



Another point i would like to make is how small a fraction of the "big picture" we're looking at. Earth is 4 billions years old, in just the last 100 years mankind has made incredible advances, these advances have had results of which we don't know the outcome. Is it wise to sit back and just wait it out, maybe nothing is wrong? Or maybe is it wise to analytically research the effects of history and perhaps apply it to what we scientifically can assume may happen? Or maybe we just don't care at all and are that selfish that "we" are all that matters right now.



I'll fish up some references if you'd like when i get home tonight, I'll give you a stack of books that'd take you a year to read. My thesis had over 100 references.

 

[schu777]

Rhickman - okay, can't deny that you have done lots of research on pollution and the effects of it. You stated that you wrote a thesis on it, now correct me if I'm wrong, but according to dictionary.com, thesis (1. A proposition that is maintained by argument. 2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree. 3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof. ). Which to me means - someone has an idea, has some scientific facts to support their idea... however, if some scientific data isn't available or even known about and is found out later, will the people supporting that idea agree they were wrong about idea (all or some of it)?



No offense rhickman, but how do we know the earth is 4 billion years old? What proof do we have that it is? Sure they have used carbon dating to determine the age, but hasn't the technique for carbon dating been questioned to be inaccurate? If carbon dating procedure doesn't work, then how can we determine the age of the earth? I don't think anyone really knows, just that it's been around for some time.



Global warming - how long have we been collecting data? 10 years, 25? 50? 100? I don't know how long data has been collected. How do we know in the past that we haven't had higher levels of global warming? Sure we can have averages of stuff happening, like the 100 year flood, how do we not know of the data that is being collected is just part of the higher average?



Is mankind adding pollution - yep, driving cars/trucks, burning the fuels is causing pollution. Just look at what amount of garbage the average consumer is producing per day - it's a crazy amount, yet I still see companies making stupid "throw away" items, use once, then throw away. Yes, you are correct that the consumer needs to be more educated to realize what they are doing. That will be tough - mankind is lazy - doesn't want to be bothered with simple things as sorting the cans/paper - using large bins of household items.



rhickman - please don't be offended by my comments - just my viewpoints which in this great land of America, we are free to have and a great number of men had paid a price so we can voice our opinions, our beliefs.



Michael

 

[Rman]

you bring up good points, points that i was trying to get others to think about. The whole concept of this emission control is that it is something that CAN be controlled. Its relatively simple to control compared to controlling natural occurrances.



This entire thread boils down to people thinking the government is out to get them by singling out diesel emissions. FACTS have proven that diesel soot is a sizeable portion to the entire picture of global warming. This all can be avoided by simply burning cleaner fuel... and improving the soot particle absorption (special gadgets in the exhaust). Is it that wrong that we've analyzed the way we are performing operations and realized hey, maybe there is a better way. Thats human nature, to constantly improve processes. What aggravates me is the close mindedness that what we're doing is correct, and that nothing is wrong and that scientists are wrong. And the fact that what they "think" and what they blindly accept as normal is ok.



I'm trying to encourage people to sit down and look at the scale of things. The hundreds of thousands of metric tons of particles emitted daily can be reduced, and without much sacrifice. People just don't want to change and that is a shame.



As for the age of the earth thing, i don't want to jump off another tangent, but no they do not use carbon dating for that. Geology and astrophysics are the basis for the assumption. However, i side with you that we really don't know, but that is what science is for. Science is about proving what we know and comparing it with what we don't know. This gives us hypothesis, many of which at some point could be proven wrong. On the age of the earth thing, trust me it's old.



The global warming thing you mentioned is exactly my point. We haven't been collecting data for long in the scope of the timeline. However, this cannot be the basis on which we make decisions, for it is not large enough. That is why we compare with historic data collected from earth samples and a myriad of other resources that we make a best judgement on what correct avenues to persue.



To overlook the fact that we pump hundreds of thousands of tons of matter into the air and think well nothing is wrong now we must be ok is rather arrogant. Man did not pump that much matter out 200, 500, or a thousand years ago. With population growth those figures can grow exponentially. Its just common sense, combined with scientific data, combined with a little practicality to make things work out to benefit everyone.



Ultimately the big hurt is put on the industry, which runs on money... is risking the future of the planet worth lining the pockets of a CEO of a petro company? Again look at the big picture here, look past the diesel truck market... that is the least of what the EPA is worried about. Think globally. The sanctions they propose though do impose a heavy burden, primarily on america industry which is why a compromise must be reached.



I think i'm going to go on and be one of the "un-educated" again, it seems i'm the only one on my side. I don't feel like arguing on the internet when there really is no benefit from it. I did find quite a few articles on the net to reference, but sad to say mostly from greenie org's and the EPA... biased information to say the least. I couldn't find a nuetral unbiased analysis yet. I'll keep searchin though.