Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
I would ask roflwaffle: Do you really believe the pronouncements of CARB and SCAQMD? Have you ever worked with bureaucrats? I have. I was one for a few years and got a real close look at them. Have you ever noticed that they tend to be people who could not get real jobs? Why do you attribute veracity to the pronouncements of the incompetent?
|
The risks of diesel exhaust are based on epidemiological studies AFAIK, not research by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats use said research to shape policy. If you have a problem with bureaucrats, that's fine, but it really doesn't impact whether or not diesel pollution is a health risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
How about this for the obvious: “Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems.” Please tell me one health situation where children and the elderly are not most vulnerable?
|
And the fact that these are the most vulnerable impacts the situation how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
How about this one: “Studies have also reported links between diesel exposure and other cancers, including cancer of the bladder, kidney, stomach, blood (including multiple myeloma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx.” How did they miss mesothelioma? Just what substance in the world is not “linked” to some form of cancer?
|
Those that aren't considered carcinogenic and/or aren't linked to specific cancers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
One could make the negative case that water and oxygen are linked to cancer.
|
One could try, but they'd probably be laughed out of whatever institution they're associated with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
How strong are these “links?” At what concentrations does PM2.5 trigger cancer? Do they have a clue? You know that the dosage makes the toxin. Is there a published confidence factor for them? Or are they nebulous scare tactics?
|
Search for, find, and read the papers yourself if you would like to find more info about your questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
What is the metric for the health payoff of these regulations? Reduced hospitalizations? A longer life expectancy? What are the American people getting in exchange for diesel fuel costing 70 to 90 cents a gallon more than unleaded and diesel vehicles being robbed of 4% of their efficiency. (If you are a fan of Al Gore, et al, this reduction in efficiency reads out in greater CO2 emissions, so that is another price of these regulations.) Is there a metric of the benefit like we had with lead, or is this like the ozone thing where the payoff is uncertain and many decades into the future, or is it (as I suspect) a sacrifice without payoff?
|
The differential in price is temporary and related to strong worldwide distillate demand as well as a drop in temperature leading to increased demand for heating oil as well as the switch to ULSD for offroad equipment during this high demand period, as well as relatively low demand for gasoline. I'm not sure what the metric for payoff is however I'm sure you could locate it with some searching. That being said, since it's human lives we're talking about, I wonder how one can accurately put a metric on those.