Fossil Fuel Survialist Guide for the Sane

I agree. A lot of people were saying that the government should tax gas so that it would spawn new energy solutions. I don't subscribe to that notion. I don't think we should tax coal either.

Richard S. wrote:Smitty, most of the literature I've read on asthma says its from other causes, it's rare you'll find a legitimate report that says it's from burning fossil fuels. I don't believe they know what the cause is for the recent rise, I'd imagine it being diagnosed more is one reason. Having said that I don't think you need to be rocket scientist to figure out if the air pollution has dropped in the same time frame we have an increase in cases you should probably look elsewhere for a cause.

I know what causes mine: trees! I'm not kidding -- Tree pollen, or any pollen for that matter, kills me. In Phoenix & northern Cali, there isn't much in the way of trees. I've also noticed that over the last 5 years or more, pollen production of trees seems to be in overdrive. You can actually see the pollen in the air when the wind blows in the early spring. To me, that would explain the increase in cases. Then, the other half would be health care providers looking to make a buck.

traderfjp wrote:Have you even gotten a wiff of diesel fuel burning or the exhaust coming out of your car. Do we really need an expert to tell us this is dangerous to our environment.

Then why did my grandfather live to be 86? & why is my father still alive after smoking for 55 years of his life? He worked on cars too. Another point that I forgot to mention in the other post was that I drove a diesel truck for over 6 years. The first 5 years was in a cabover which had the exhaust pointing at the ground less that 3 feet from my head, which blasted it right in my face (I drove a right side drive recycling truck on a large metropolitan route). If you listen to the media, I should have died during the first 3 months on the job, even without asthma.

Pollution in the USA is nowhere near as bad as they make it out to be. Have you ever been to Mexico? China? I've been to Mexico, & my eyes were burning from all the straight exhaust, but yet I, and the millions of Mexicans (half of which will end up here illegally, btw) still live on.

trader, what seems not to be understood is that most "pollution" from combustion is either unstable chemicals that decompose to chemicals that are redily found in nature or are already chemicals commonly found in nature. take the diesel truck spewing hydrocarbons, much the same as what is found in plants and animals or the gasoline vapors entering the atmosphere (voc's); the same as the voc's from decaying plant materials. or how about volcanos? yes there are SOME horribly toxic chemicals produced by man that are persistant and unlike anything found naturally on this earth (vinyl chloride for example); but almost everything resulting from combustion is the same or very similar to a natural chemical that would have been found in abundance on earth were humans not to exist. remember allmost all pollution is fleeting, remove the source and the evidence will be gone from it's existance very, very quickly.

We don't need to move to "green" renewable energy sources any time soon. There is plenty of conventional coal, oil, and gas to be exploited for centuries to come and after that, market forces and the natural course of scientific investigation will provide all the bridges and alternatives that are needed. there is NO need to move away from coal electrical generation or switch to CNG for motor vehicles. and if you want to heat w/ bitty coal, well, you go right ahead. the market will (and thus "WE")
decide what we need and when we need it!

traderfjp wrote:Common sense tells us that spewing toxins into the air is not good for the environment. Have you even gotten a wiff of diesel fuel burning or the exhaust coming out of your car.

When I was a kid there were very few asthma sufferers, school buses were all run on gasoline. Today the buses run on diesel and asthma has exploded.

We certainly have a lot of coal and natural gas in this country but from what I read oil production around the world is starting to decline.

coaledsweat wrote: When I was a kid there were very few asthma sufferers, school buses were all run on gasoline. Today the buses run on diesel and asthma has exploded.

So you think there's a correlation?

cabinover wrote:
So you think there's a correlation?

I do and believe it to be the particulate emissions as they get caught in the air sacks of the lung.

i think that's utter nonsense; pure correlation, not causation. Europe has had a predominantly diesel fleet of vehicles for years with no epidemic of asthma and in the developing world where asthma is at much lower levels the vehicle fleets are predominantly diesel w/ out any pollution control. this would lead to much more exposure from diesel exhaust being prevelent in the air itself vs. the small amount of time children spend inhaling fumes from their own busses. I would also question whether or not there is a higher occurance of asthma in children who take the bus vs. children that are dropped off via their parents regularly like so many are; I would bet that asthma rates are the same or higher in children trucked around in their parents gasoline vehicle than children who take the bus and have virtually no exposure to diesel exhaust. I would be willing to argue that Nine times out of ten asthma is due to a lack of EARLY childhood exposure to the various pollutants and irritants found in the atmosphere that help shape our bodies' appropriate level immune response for various stimuli and irritants. Today asthma has exploded? yes, and so have tight houses and tight pollution regs that give us the cleanest air in the history of humankind. Our complex mucus system in our respritory system has evovled because of the filthy smoke and dust-laden air humans had traditionally been exising in; without high levels of pollution and yes, PARTICULATE MATTER, our respritory system can, during early childhood, become improperly trained and over respond to stimuli.

Berlin wrote:yes, and so have tight houses .

I think that is the reason but the opposite for what you are suggesting. The tight houses are keeping all the "pollution" or nastiness if you prefer inside the home. Tyvek type house wrap pretty much became commonplace when the asthma started escalating. The houses no longer breathe or ventilate and all that crap is stuck inside. Another factor may be that it's simply being diagnosed more too.

Be interesting if they did any studies comparing kids in new homes vs. those in older homes.

i think you might be right, in a way. the tight houses ARE Definitely keeping a lot of "nastiness" inside, such as all the chemicals that are being emitted from all manner of houshold goods and building materials. Unfortunately, at the same time they are keeping out: soot, much "combustion-related pollution" and pollen/dusts/mold spores etc.- all things that can be common triggers of asthma. so it's really the worst of both worlds, but, hey, at least if you heat with gas, it'll save you a few bucks!

Berlin wrote:i think that's utter nonsense; pure correlation, not causation.

I guess I'm not the only one that believes in this utter nonsense.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/suppl-1/103-11 ... tract.html

Berlin wrote: "tight houses and tight pollution regs that give us the cleanest air in the history of humankind."

Not sure this is what you meant because in many developing countries pollution has never been worse. We might have the strickest regs but we definetely don't have the same clean air as before the industrial revolution.

traderfjp wrote: We might have the strickest regs but we definetely don't have the same clean air as before the industrial revolution.

Yes but as the EPA documentation in my original post indicates a 54% drop since 1980. Here's a different breakdown between 1970 and 1999:
One thing to keep in mind is that documentation deals with all air pollution and not just that from coal fired power plants. Lead makes up the biggest drop because of it's removal from gasoline but particulate matter which would be more associated with coal is bringing up a close second with a 77% drop. We also have to remember that the activities that create these pollutants has increased significantly so the decrease is quite an accomplishment.

The next argument is why not do it with CO2? Whereas the above pollutants can be addressed in many ways other than pollution controls such as simple things like altering the burning process CO2 on the other hand is going to be created no matter what you do. When you burn things it creates CO2 and it's produced in enormous quantities. The only realistic solution I'm aware of is carbon capture and storage which presents huge hurdles because of the quantities.

coaledsweat wrote:guess I'm not the only one that believes in this utter nonsense.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/supp ... tract.html

I don't buy that for a second. Like I said in my post earlier, I had diesel smoke billowing right in my face for 5 years, while performing strenuous activity. I've got asthma pretty bad -- I have had several near death episodes over my lifetime, of which few could even comprehend (duct tape your mouth & nose shut except for a coffee stirrer, now try to swim back to shore 1/2 mile out). Never once was it triggered by diesel smoke. I have more asthma attacks indoor than anywhere else.

Berlin wrote:I would be willing to argue that Nine times out of ten asthma is due to a lack of EARLY childhood exposure to the various pollutants and irritants found in the atmosphere that help shape our bodies' appropriate level immune response for various stimuli and irritants.

I agree 200%. My mother was a neurotic cleaner. If a microscopic spec of dust landed under the baseboard heater, she would find it & spend 1 hour cleaning it. I also strongly believe that some of the inhalers used to treat asthma actually cause the condition to become worse. I have first hand experience with this -- if I use an albuterol ( fast acting type ) inhaler instead of nebulized albuterol (atomized by an air pump or oxygen), my symptoms will degrade over time, until I would have to be rushed to the hospital. Happens every time. I now use it as an absolute last resort if I'm away from home. I used to carry one around with me from 6th grade up until my mid 20's. There's all kinds of studies out there about how bad this stuff is for your heart & your health in general. I used to suck one of these things down in 2 WEEKS!! They'd tell me if I used 1 in 2 months that it was bad! This all makes sense when you factor greed into the equation. If drug companies make an inhaler that provides immediate relief, yet causes symptoms to worsen over time (essentially, make asthma sufferers dependent upon), think of the profits reaped at $200 each!

I wouldn't doubt that for a second. I trust drug companies as much as I trust MA state gov't.

yes, overall as a species, we BREATH the cleanest air in the history of humankind. Asthma is primarily a western epidemic so the dirty air in developing countries only serves to further my theory and overall, I would argue that the mean pollution we are exposed to as a species is significantly less worldwide than it was 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. we live sheltered lives with air filters in our homes, cars, and offices. before the industrial revolution we were building fires in our huts/caves, doing hands-on dusty maunual farm labor and our towns were full of smoke, dust, mold and pathogens. as far as that information on diesel exhaust goes, well, there can be theories half-assedly supported by anything, however, find me the significant effect- find the asthma epidemic across europe that is significantly greater than our own, or in developing nations; the air where 60+ percent of the vehicle fleet is compression ignition will surely contain much much greater concentrations of those chemicals referenced in that article, so where's the substantial epidemic? It doesn't exist because there is no correlation or causation.