Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Pollution:the biggest killer on British roads


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 23 February 2010 - 03:50 AM

Quote

Sorry but cars give out lots of poisons and particulates, unless you think walking through a cloud of benzine and carbon monoxide is perfectly healthy.
And yet planes, trains, ships, homes, factories and powerplants don't? As I said earlier, most of the people who died probably had underlying health problems anyway, and I would have accepted figures of official death tolls from pollution in countries such as the UK which were not released at the date specified in the article. If it said 2008 rather than 1998, I would have been much less annoyed.

I never said that cars weren't still producing pollutants but the levels at which these pollutants are emitted  have been reduced is much lower than they were back in 1998. Go to any manufacturer website or any site which has the Euro Emissions standards on it and compare a car made in 1998 to a car made in 2008. Cars are no longer the daisy strangling tanks which are driven by people who don't give a rat's **** about the environment.

I know cars can still be cleaner but attibuting GW entirely to the automobile is not only biased but wrong (this isn't directed at you Matt but to those who belive this in general).

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#17    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 23 February 2010 - 02:00 PM

View PostMichaelW, on 23 February 2010 - 03:50 AM, said:

And yet planes, trains, ships, homes, factories and powerplants don't? As I said earlier, most of the people who died probably had underlying health problems anyway, and I would have accepted figures of official death tolls from pollution in countries such as the UK which were not released at the date specified in the article. If it said 2008 rather than 1998, I would have been much less annoyed.

I never said that cars weren't still producing pollutants but the levels at which these pollutants are emitted  have been reduced is much lower than they were back in 1998. Go to any manufacturer website or any site which has the Euro Emissions standards on it and compare a car made in 1998 to a car made in 2008. Cars are no longer the daisy strangling tanks which are driven by people who don't give a rat's **** about the environment.

I know cars can still be cleaner but attibuting GW entirely to the automobile is not only biased but wrong (this isn't directed at you Matt but to those who belive this in general).

Not to the same extent they don't no.

Why are you annoyed, I gave you a load of papers showing that this is still very much the case. Sorry but cars, especially due to their volume and the fact that are already at our level are the biggest problem and there is a lot of evidence to confirm that.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#18    Alien Being

Alien Being

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2010 - 02:06 PM

View PostMattshark, on 23 February 2010 - 02:00 PM, said:

Not to the same extent they don't no.

Why are you annoyed, I gave you a load of papers showing that this is still very much the case. Sorry but cars, especially due to their volume and the fact that are already at our level are the biggest problem and there is a lot of evidence to confirm that.

Really. Is it the same scientists telling you that as the ones that told you global warming was real?

I think ashma is caused by vacinations. As far as pollution goes your body encounters many toxins throughout its live even if living out in the wilderness away from towns and cities. Your body is also capable of dealign with them.


#19    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 23 February 2010 - 02:26 PM

View PostAlien Being, on 23 February 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

Really. Is it the same scientists telling you that as the ones that told you global warming was real?

I think ashma is caused by vacinations. As far as pollution goes your body encounters many toxins throughout its live even if living out in the wilderness away from towns and cities. Your body is also capable of dealign with them.

Well just looking at temperature records will show that actually, and if you looked there is a list of recent papers on the subject.

You think that, unless you have good evidence to back it up though it is meaningless. You would also have to look over the numerous genetic factors involved an explain why vaccination is causing them.

Really? How often do you naturally walk though a cloud of benzine and carbon monoxide naturally? You body can't deal with these poisons at all.

Edited by Mattshark, 23 February 2010 - 02:28 PM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#20    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 23 February 2010 - 07:17 PM

What the hell has rising temperatures got to do with asthma? It is common knowlege that the Western world has the highest rates of asthma in the world, and out of those countries, I think the UK has one of the highest numbers. If someone died from pollution, then they most probably had some sort of underlying health problems anyway and it is this fact which you seem to ingore.

I was annoyed at the fact they were using old data which does not necessairily represent the current numbers. Using statistics like those in the article to create a current picture of deaths attibuted to pollution is both stupid and almost wrong. Any self deserving newspaper would know that.

Sure, electric trains and other public transport which runs on alternative fuels uses less power and produces less carbons but those who use diesel are producing twice as much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide than say, petrol, compressed natural gas or LPG do. All that stuff you said about how cars are most polluting is just downright wrong. All you seem to do is ignore the reasoable arguments and concentrate on the statements which make you look good.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#21    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 23 February 2010 - 08:16 PM

View PostMichaelW, on 23 February 2010 - 07:17 PM, said:

What the hell has rising temperatures got to do with asthma? It is common knowlege that the Western world has the highest rates of asthma in the world, and out of those countries, I think the UK has one of the highest numbers. If someone died from pollution, then they most probably had some sort of underlying health problems anyway and it is this fact which you seem to ingore.

I was annoyed at the fact they were using old data which does not necessairily represent the current numbers. Using statistics like those in the article to create a current picture of deaths attibuted to pollution is both stupid and almost wrong. Any self deserving newspaper would know that.

Sure, electric trains and other public transport which runs on alternative fuels uses less power and produces less carbons but those who use diesel are producing twice as much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide than say, petrol, compressed natural gas or LPG do. All that stuff you said about how cars are most polluting is just downright wrong. All you seem to do is ignore the reasoable arguments and concentrate on the statements which make you look good.
No it isn't wrong. Cars are far more prevalent and far more of a problem.

I haven't ignored anything, I have presented evidence showing why these things are a real problem and I think it is unjustifiable of you to claim I have ignored anything when I am the only one to present extra evidence.

Sorry Michael, you are wrong about your conclusions.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#22    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 24 February 2010 - 01:56 AM

Maybe I should be more blatant. You cannot attribute 24,000 deaths just to pollution alone. That sort of figure is more likely associated with smoking. And those figures expressed in the article were from 1998 which means they do not represent an accurate picture of the current trend of deaths arrtibuted to pollution anyway. I also said that many of those who had died would have had underlying health problems anyway, so they were sick before they were exposed to said pollution.

I just don't see how someone can say a situtation is worse when the figures to back it up are 12 years old. It's just stupid.

Edited by MichaelW, 24 February 2010 - 01:57 AM.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#23    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 24 February 2010 - 01:57 PM

View PostMichaelW, on 24 February 2010 - 01:56 AM, said:

Maybe I should be more blatant. You cannot attribute 24,000 deaths just to pollution alone. That sort of figure is more likely associated with smoking. And those figures expressed in the article were from 1998 which means they do not represent an accurate picture of the current trend of deaths arrtibuted to pollution anyway. I also said that many of those who had died would have had underlying health problems anyway, so they were sick before they were exposed to said pollution.

I just don't see how someone can say a situtation is worse when the figures to back it up are 12 years old. It's just stupid.
Not really, it can just take that long with analysing figures, especially government ones, it should also be noted that more recent studies have done nothing but reinforce this data. Yes some may have had underlying health problems, but traffic fumes in some places, especially in busy area's are worse than the effects of smoking.

Because more recent studies say so, that is why.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users