Are giant 18 wheelers and other large trucks part of that 1/4?
And, uh, where is the link to said article?
Ah, but the good news is that here in Wisconsin, we’ve gutted our automotive emissions testing program. Cars made before 1996 no longer have to be tested, since, so it’s claimed, they make up such a small percentage of vehicles on the road. Diesel vehicles were never subject to testing in the first place, no, not even that smoke-belching, over-sized novelty vehicle that just passed you on the interstate. Anyway, the program still only covers 6 of our counties, so there’s that.
I don’t know for sure, but I do wonder if this is happening in other US states.
for somebody living near multiple roads, they could be exposed to up to ten times more pollutants than if they didn’t live near any major roads
Not a particularly useful finding unless it’s compared to the level of air pollution that has been documented to be a statistically significant health risk.
I could be getting 0.1 mg of a given toxin in my drinking water each day, compared to my brother in the next state who is getting 0.003 mg. But if the level which actually makes me sick is 12.5 mg, I’m likely to react to the news with a hearty “So what?”
When I owned a really old car in a region that required very comprehensive testing, I was amused to see that for nearly every measured pollutant my old car got lower numbers than the previous year, every year. There has been a two-pronged attack to meet government-mandated emissions requirements, one prong has been to make the engines cleaner-burning, the other has been to make the fuel cleaner-burning. Since most auto-emissions laws only require a car to meet the standards in place at the time they were manufactured, the tests eventually become almost pro-forma, as any car in decent condition would pass by virtue of the improved chemistry of the fuel now in use.
Anyone who has ever been behind a noticeably stinky vehicle exhaust knows which cars are part of the 1/4 delivering the 90% of emissions. I’d hate to take away someone’s car but it wouldn’t be that difficult to flag the worst offenders and give them free tuneups or vouchers for a newer cleaner car. It all depends on whether it’s a problem you want to solve and your tolerance for the types of actions which could solve it.
I’d love to see the raw data correlated with vehicle age as well. I had heard that during the Great Recession when no one was buying new trucks, the increased age of cars on the road meant increased emissions vs. if people had replaced their vehicles as during a less unstable economic period. In this study, surprisingly (perhaps I should say, against my prejudice), trucks were not worse in all emissions, just black carbon, particle number and NOx.
The health effects of these pollutants is well documented in other papers (READ THE DAMN REFERENCES), so much so that that governments regularly institute regulations in an attempt to reduce air pollution within their territory. Knowing more about which vehicles cause the problem, and how to design emissions tests which properly identify the culprits might make these regulations more effective in achieving the overall goal.
Holy astrosnapples, they roaded a time-of-flight mass spec. Did it somehow come in a chip or is that a case of ‘we threw down for maintenance, let’s go park 2 million where we’ll be seen using breather masks?’ What’s BTEX in there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTEX oh…benzene, toluene, all the VOCs that can’t be mistaken for boutique perfumes plus styrene if you don’t mind saying BTEXS. BMEXs is not a thing in that vein, then…
-Pull all the Thursday night traffic over
-Ask if they’re sober
-Offer a one-shot or flight to fix that
-Try to get the ECUs back on line
-Fix the catalytic converters
-Hand their bike back over
-Frogpet! Reinvest frog debt. Something.
I hate to break it to you, but what you are most likely smelling is the catalytic converter. Catalytic converters are one of the most integral components in vehicles emission control systems. They also have a habit of smelling like cat piss. A witch hunt on cars that offend your olfaction is about the worst possible course of action.
what about CP manufactuers- cityservices, airports and other buildings that cause pollution, what percentage are they? Not 1/10.
So whats worse for the environment? The cars creating the pollution or attempting to dispose of the cars and manufacturing new ones?
I know my old truck smokes and smells but it was manufactured in 1957. How much pollution or waste has been saved by keeping it on the road opposed to throwing it away and getting a new one? Manufacturing and transporting a new car must produce 10 times the pollution I could spew out in a decade. (thinking of prius’ or teslas and things)
Maybe I’m wrong though.
Yeah! That’s what the signboards they put up in '90 or so were supposed to measure, but then there was a maintenance bubble or being close on the roadway to sample wasn’t a 40-cent daily NHSTA filing and it all had to stop with the pilot, right? EFs…Emission Flume? Funk? I must have the effs. (cough)
Great! I can finally move back to WI:
It probably just needs a tune-up, but who has time for that…
A smokin’ hot vehicle it is.
Significantly less than you’re willing to believe.