Another pollution paper

From Scientific American newsletter:

** Pedestrians Inhale Less Pollution than Passengers

When strolling alongside a busy city street on a smoggy summer day, it
may seem as if riding in one of the taxis streaming by might provide a
respite from the exhaust-choked air. Instead new research from London
reveals that taxi rides take a toll on your lungs as well as your
wallet.

http://cl.exct.net/?ffcb10-fe5910777...3-ff3310707762

Tamyka Bell Wrote:
From Scientific American newsletter:

** Pedestrians Inhale Less Pollution than Passengers

When strolling alongside a busy city street on a smoggy summer day, it
may seem as if riding in one of the taxis streaming by might provide a
respite from the exhaust-choked air. Instead new research from London
reveals that taxi rides take a toll on your lungs as well as your
wallet.

http://tinyurl.com/7jktx

it's kind of depressing that there's all this research out there
proving beyond doubt that the pollution from the internal combustion
engine is detrimental to society yet nothing is done about it.

What's the betting that if anything is done about it it'll be to the
detriment of walking / cycling and motor vehicle use will remain
unaffected?


--
EuanB

EuanB wrote:

it's kind of depressing that there's all this research out there
proving beyond doubt that the pollution from the internal combustion
engine is detrimental to society yet nothing is done about it.

It does add some value to peoples lives as well. How long would it take to
get that new frame from Italy without an internal combustion engine? Could
it even be made without one? Should we go back to horse and carriage days
when there was several hundred tons of manure on the streets of NY every
day?

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Should we go back to horse and carriage days
when there was several hundred tons of manure on the streets of NY every
day?

Not a problem unless you have high density housing.
I'd just build a bicycle trailer with shovel holder and then I could
provide street-to-garden delivery service of fertiliser {:-).

It would certainly save me a 20km vehicle trip for load of various
fertilisers. {:-).

Just think of all those luverly fresh vegetable straight from your
garden to table in seconds.

Terry Collins wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Should we go back to horse and carriage days
when there was several hundred tons of manure on the streets of NY
every day?

Not a problem unless you have high density housing.
I'd just build a bicycle trailer with shovel holder and then I could
provide street-to-garden delivery service of fertiliser {:-).

Without motorised transport you must have high-density housing as you have
to be able to walk to where you make your living. The smell wafts slowly up
to your floor and enters your open window. (No Air-con). :-)

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:

it's kind of depressing that there's all this research out there
proving beyond doubt that the pollution from the internal combustion
engine is detrimental to society yet nothing is done about it.

It does add some value to peoples lives as well. How long would it take
to
get that new frame from Italy without an internal combustion engine?
Could
it even be made without one? Should we go back to horse and carriage
days
when there was several hundred tons of manure on the streets of NY
every
day?

Theo
As opposed to several thousand tonnes of emissions from vehicle
exhausts that not only damage the immediate environment but also
contribute to global environmental problems. But hey if you cant see
it there isnt a problem.

A large ship carrying thousands of tonnes of materials from one side of
the world to another would be much more efficient for the mass moved and
distance travelled than that of a commuter car. The push should be for
efficiency (commuters cycling/walking/mass transport) and not the
immediate eradication of the internal combustion engine until something
better comes along.

Ultimately we should genitically engineer giant messenger pidgeons and
everything can be transported around the world by them. They can be
trained to use toilets so that someone doesn't recieve a 100kg message
from above.


--
Paulie-AU

what about the Oil companies !? no one is thinking of them are they ?


--
MikeyOz

Paulie-AU wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

It does add some value to peoples lives as well. How long would it
take to
get that new frame from Italy without an internal combustion engine?
Could
it even be made without one? Should we go back to horse and carriage
days
when there was several hundred tons of manure on the streets of NY
every
day?


As opposed to several thousand tonnes of emissions from vehicle
exhausts that not only damage the immediate environment but also
contribute to global environmental problems. But hey if you cant see
it there isnt a problem.

Did I say that? I think I was saying let's look for a solution or a
replacement ffor the infernal combustion engine. It does have so many
advantages for people that they aren't going to do without it.

A large ship carrying thousands of tonnes of materials from one side
of the world to another would be much more efficient for the mass
moved and distance travelled than that of a commuter car. The push
should be for efficiency (commuters cycling/walking/mass transport)
and not the immediate eradication of the internal combustion engine
until something better comes along.

So are you prepared to live close to work in higher density housing? That is
the quickest way to reduce our use of private motor vehicles.

Ultimately we should genitically engineer giant messenger pidgeons

That would be pigeons (isn't English phonetically deficient;-) ).
Unfortunately most birds consume something like half their weight in food
per day with dire consequences to those below. Horses are more efficient.

Theo

Paulie-AU wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

EuanB wrote:


it's kind of depressing that there's all this research out there
proving beyond doubt that the pollution from the internal combustion
engine is detrimental to society yet nothing is done about it.

It does add some value to peoples lives as well. How long would it take
to
get that new frame from Italy without an internal combustion engine?
Could
it even be made without one? Should we go back to horse and carriage
days
when there was several hundred tons of manure on the streets of NY
every
day?

Theo

As opposed to several thousand tonnes of emissions from vehicle
exhausts that not only damage the immediate environment but also
contribute to global environmental problems. But hey if you cant see
it there isnt a problem.

A large ship carrying thousands of tonnes of materials from one side of
the world to another would be much more efficient for the mass moved and
distance travelled than that of a commuter car. The push should be for
efficiency (commuters cycling/walking/mass transport) and not the
immediate eradication of the internal combustion engine until something
better comes along.

Ultimately we should genitically engineer giant messenger pidgeons and
everything can be transported around the world by them. They can be
trained to use toilets so that someone doesn't recieve a 100kg message
from above.




I never understood the demise of the large commercial airship.
Hundreds of tonnes capable of actually being delivered downtown for the
cost in pollution terms of a few cars. Speeds of 70 mph. No massive
airports. Room to move (for passengers) Amazing relability (if all
the engines stop.. it just stays up and you can climb out and fix em)
And in spite of what you hear a pretty good safety record.. Hell even
the Hindenberg had survivors.. as opposed to the average airbus crash

Dave

On 2006-01-18, dave wrote:
And in spite of what you hear a pretty good safety record.. Hell even
the Hindenberg had survivors.. as opposed to the average airbus crash

The Hindenberg was a disaster for one very simple reason: they used a
substance to cover the balloon that was, chemically speaking, very
similar to touch powder. When it came in to land, it was electrically
charged compared with the ground; the landing structure caused a spark
to form, and that ignited the coating.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the hydrogen gas used to keep it
afloat, and even if it did, helium isn't *that* much more expensive.
Just make sure the balloon is made out of non flammable materials.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".