Another pollution paper

Tamyka Bell said:

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.

cl.exct.netcl.exct.netOpen ↗

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 said:

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 said:

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 said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

quote='Theo Bekkers'EuanB said:

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[/QUOTE]
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.

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

Paulie-AU said:

Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Theo Bekkers said:

EuanB said:

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

dave said:

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".

Stuart Lamble said:

dave said:

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.

Yeah stuart. I know this. Was just pointing out that even the
Hindenburg (surely a worst case situation, an airship filled with
hydrogen and painted with rocket fuel in a thunderstorm) had survivers,
The Akron broke in 3 in a hurricane and all 3 sections had survivors.
The R101 (a triumph of [censored] goverment design), crashed in a storm and
cought fire. Had survivors. Etc etc. People have ditched large
airships with survivors. No one has ever ditched a 747 sucessfully

For machines condemmed on safety grounds, they were fairly safe

Dave

Tamyka Bell said:

MikeyOz said:

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

And what about the guv'ment?!

Tam

But we must 'think of the children'

Dave

MikeyOz said:

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

And what about the guv'ment?!

Tam

quote='Theo Bekkers'EuanB said:

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?[/QUOTE]

As an immigrant to this country I'm well aware of the advantages of the internal combustion engine (not to mention jet propulsion.) I don't adovcate that we eliminate the internal combustion engine, more that we learn how to use it more appropriately.

Adding pollution to the atmosphere by driving a private car to a theatre so I can go watch a movie is convenient but it's not necessary. The lack of viable alternatives (insufficient public transport, lack of secure bicycle parking) makes it convenient. Giving the consumer more palatable alternatives which are greener either by moving more pax per vehicle or encouraging non-polluting means of transport such as walking or cycling should be encouraged over private vehicle use.

Stuart Lamble said:

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.

Read recently that we are scheduled to run out of helium before the
middle of this century. Something to think about when you next play with
party balloons. 😉

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html

--
..dt

Theo Bekkers said:

Without motorised transport you must have high-density housing as you have
to be able to walk to where you make your living.

I can not believe that you said that on a bicycling group.

For over 100 years Theo, over 100 years, peeps have been commuting to
work on bicycles.

There are some fabulous photos of shift change/knock off time at BHP in
Newcastle NSW with a sea of workers (boiler suit and boot) heading home
on bicycle (usually single speed, with upturned drop bars and billy/crib
on handlebars).

Sorry, but can not get anything out of google images, but I do know
there are some on the web somewhere.

Quoted message said:

The smell wafts slowly up
to your floor and enters your open window. (No Air-con). :-)

If the smell bothers you, then you dig it in.

Theo Bekkers said:

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.

I think you will find bullocks probably are, especially if you take down
time into consideration. They may not be speedy, but you can feed them
and then get them working whiklst they digest the food, whereas the
horse requires digestion time. And as a bonus, you can eat them when
they get old (although this point probably doesn't apply in certain
countries)

Terry Collins said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without motorised transport you must have high-density housing as
you have to be able to walk to where you make your living.

Quoted message said:

I can not believe that you said that on a bicycling group.

For over 100 years Theo, over 100 years, peeps have been commuting to
work on bicycles.

And they still do. My parents did, I did. But now most people in Perth live
too far from where they work to make cycling a viable proposition. We would
need to live closer (probably within 15 kms) to make cycling to work viable
for everyone. And that entails higher density living. I would imagine it is
worse in Syd/Melb.

Theo

EuanB said:

As an immigrant to this country I'm well aware of the advantages of
the internal combustion engine (not to mention jet propulsion.) I
don't adovcate that we eliminate the internal combustion engine, more
that we learn how to use it more appropriately.

I am also an immigrant but I came here by an efficient boat, rather than an
aircraft. The fact that I needed to be fed and bedded for the 28 days of the
journey probably detracts from the boat engine's effective efficiency. :-)

Quoted message said:

Adding pollution to the atmosphere by driving a private car to a
theatre so I can go watch a movie is convenient but it's not
necessary. The lack of viable alternatives (insufficient public
transport, lack of secure bicycle parking) makes it convenient.
Giving the consumer more palatable alternatives which are greener
either by moving more pax per vehicle or encouraging non-polluting
means of transport such as walking or cycling should be encouraged
over private vehicle use.

Agreed. I will not go to the theatre any more. 1000 people turning up at a
movie theatre on a wet evening on bicycles would be interesting.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

EuanB said:

As an immigrant to this country I'm well aware of the advantages of
the internal combustion engine (not to mention jet propulsion.) I
don't adovcate that we eliminate the internal combustion engine, more
that we learn how to use it more appropriately.

I am also an immigrant but I came here by an efficient boat, rather than an
aircraft. The fact that I needed to be fed and bedded for the 28 days of the
journey probably detracts from the boat engine's effective efficiency. :-)

Not as much as you might think. The food would have been eaten by you
anyway, so the only contributing factor it makes is to the amount of
energy needed to move the boat through the water.

Having said that, I seem to recall that the 747 (for example) uses less
fuel per passenger than a car carrying a single passenger, for a given
distance, assuming a full load of people. Let's see ... 450 passengers,
14,816 km, up to 227,600 litres of fuel ... that's 6,667,200 passenger
kilometres, at 29.3 km per litre. Not bad. In comparison, the A380 can
carry 555 passengers 15,000 km with a load of up to 310,000 litres of
fuel ... that's 8,325,000 passenger kilometres, at 26.8 km per litre.

To take things *way* off topic, I've heard that Emirates will be setting
up at least one 380 in the 800 passenger configuration (ie: all cattle
class) and flying it to London from Australia. Assuming from Perth,
that's 11,599,200 passenger km at 37.4 km per litre. Seriously
impressive.

All that's with jet turbines, though; internal combustion engines do
better when the speed varies.

--
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".