Study blames 2,200 deaths on traffic emissions

[AndyH]

Actually, mogur is right. With modern cars (w/cats) CO emissions are so low that it's much more difficult to die in an enclosed garage than it used to be.

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/115/2/580.long

http://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/26/carbon_monoxide_emissions

Even without cats - modern cars produce a LOT less CO than they used to thanks to the wonders modern fuel injection.

None of this means that I would like to sit in an enclosed space with a running automobile, though! It may not kill you in a day - but that doesn't mean it's good for your long-term health!

Right - "more difficult." We're still pulling the O2 out of the air and replacing it with CO, CO2, and other stuff...

"More difficult" does not equal mogur's "can't commit suicide this way anymore."

 

[Stoaty]

Actually, mogur is right. With modern cars (w/cats) CO emissions are so low that it's much more difficult to die in an enclosed garage than it used to be.

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/115/2/580.long

This is technically true as the patient in question didn't die in his garage... he died later in the hospital from complications of his CO poisoning. Didn't make his family feel any better, I am sure.

"Postoperative neurological diagnoses were compressive neuropathies, including compartment syndrome in the right lower extremity and bilateral sciatica resulting from pressure palsies. Physical therapy was recommended and initiated; however, the patient developed fever and was found to be septic from a right lower extremity source. Despite being given IV antibiotics, the patient’s condition worsened rapidly. Before an above-knee amputation could be performed, he died, 5 days after admission. "

Me, I'm gonna pass on the CO.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

one can still die depending on his garage. if its got a good door seal, he probably could still do it. slower creation of CO or CO2 might give him a chance to survive with nothing but a severe headache if exposure is short enough, but keep him in long enough and he will die

guess, that is one big advantage of gas guzzlers. they may run out of gas quick enough that a bottle Excedrin might fix the issue

 

[LEAFguy]

You all will likely be pleased to hear that you are protected from much of this particulate matter while in your LEAF (and any other Nissan product). Standard in every LEAF is an in-cabin microfilter that filters out all particles larger than 3 microns. Soot, ash, airborne diesel particulate exhaust - these are all removed prior to entering your cabin. This micro-filter should be replaced annually.

 

[Stoaty]

You all will likely be pleased to hear that you are protected from much of this particulate matter while in your LEAF (and any other Nissan product). Standard in every LEAF is an in-cabin microfilter that filters out all particles larger than 3 microns. Soot, ash, airborne diesel particulate exhaust - these are all removed prior to entering your cabin. This micro-filter should be replaced annually.

Damn, that's a pretty good argument for spending the money to replace the filter!

 

[AndyH]

You all will likely be pleased to hear that you are protected from much of this particulate matter while in your LEAF (and any other Nissan product). Standard in every LEAF is an in-cabin microfilter that filters out all particles larger than 3 microns. Soot, ash, airborne diesel particulate exhaust - these are all removed prior to entering your cabin. This micro-filter should be replaced annually.

Damn, that's a pretty good argument for spending the money to replace the filter!

Don't replace it early, though - the layer of trapped dust (the dust cake) 'deepens' the filter and makes it more effective. Most filters are least effective straight from the box.

http://www.donaldson.com/en/filtermedia/support/datalibrary/052024.pdf

 

[Train]

Train - What do you consider actionable, believable, legitimate information? From whom should it come

LOL Must have ruffled the herd mentality. Any hint of criticism of the Leaf is regarded as heresy, bias, and yes, FUD. Some healthy skepticism regarding a study in which we don't know anything but just a blurb in USA Today is regarded as undeniable truth.

Many, many studies have been proven to be invalid, unscientific, and just plain wrong. Because some PhD declares 2000 people dying in his study without any identification of these 2000 people is a reason to be skeptical.

So every "study" and research is 100% valid and true? I guess it is if you have your own bias and agendas to promote. Then denounce the ones you don't.

I believe information, research, studies and the like need to be based on their own merits, peer review, common sense, accepted science, and other reasons. But if you think scientists aren't persuaded by their own agendas, skewing results to keep research money flowing and publishing numbers to show what they want them to say, then you're naive.

Not to mention that this supposed 2000 number is insignificant when applied to deaths across the spectrum. You have a higher chance of death just getting in an electric car than you do from bring exposed to idle particulates.

It's FUD times 100.

Why don't we all just walk and ride bikes. Wouldn't THAT saves the most lives? How about research from PhD's from the tobacco institute? Just because some professor from Harvard got a grant to do a study doesn't mean we shouldn't question the results and the motive.

 

[Train]

One of the groups (there are 29) that commissioned the study, is the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. An organization that promotes the building of transportation infrastructure. To think that they wouldn't benefit from a such a study that reflects that current infrastructure is innefficient and identifies the need for more infrastructure (i.e., more money) by referring to said study of deaths being directly or indirectly attributable to traffic congestion and the associated costs...

 

[AndyH]

Train - What do you consider actionable, believable, legitimate information? From whom should it come

LOL Must have ruffled the herd mentality. Any hint of criticism of the Leaf is regarded as heresy, bias, and yes, FUD. Some healthy skepticism regarding a study in which we don't know anything but just a blurb in USA Today is regarded as undeniable truth.

Train - Thanks for staying in character and responding with another tangent. FYI - this has ZERO to do with the Leaf or herd mentality. :roll:

Since you responded to my question, I'll make something as clearly as I can. I'm conservative, retired military, and an analyst. I have ZERO problem with a "blurb in USA Today" when it reports a fact that's backed up by much, much more than just this single study. That's apparently the part missing from your myopic missive.

Many, many studies have been proven to be invalid, unscientific, and just plain wrong. Because some PhD declares 2000 people dying in his study without any identification of these 2000 people is a reason to be skeptical.

What are you saying here? You don't believe the results because they didn't publish the names of the dead?!

So every "study" and research is 100% valid and true? I guess it is if you have your own bias and agendas to promote. Then denounce the ones you don't.

I believe information, research, studies and the like need to be based on their own merits, peer review, common sense, accepted science, and other reasons. But if you think scientists aren't persuaded by their own agendas, skewing results to keep research money flowing and publishing numbers to show what they want them to say, then you're naive.

Not to mention that this supposed 2000 number is insignificant when applied to deaths across the spectrum. You have a higher chance of death just getting in an electric car than you do from bring exposed to idle particulates.

It's FUD times 100.

Why don't we all just walk and ride bikes. Wouldn't THAT saves the most lives? How about research from PhD's from the tobacco institute? Just because some professor from Harvard got a grant to do a study doesn't mean we shouldn't question the results and the motive.

Are you really suggesting that this study - which builds on MANY studies that have looked at the negative health effects of particulates on human health (and have led at least in part to on-road diesel vehicles wearing diesel PARTICULATE filters in their exhaust systems) - is not credible because part of the funding for this particular (pun intended) study came from a road association? Can you not understand that suggesting that idling vehicles kill people isn't good for anyone in the transportation industry? (Well, except for the companies selling stop-start mild hybrid tech, anyway...)

I asked you for insight into what you consider to be a reliable source. Instead, you present and pound on a very off-center stereotype. You'll have to do better than that if you want to be part of serious conversations.

 

[evnow]

Many, many studies have been proven to be invalid, unscientific, and just plain wrong. Because some PhD declares 2000 people dying in his study without any identification of these 2000 people is a reason to be skeptical.

Strawman. BS.

Just because "many studies have been proven to be invalid" doesn't mean this one is. You better come up with why this study is not sound science than some generic nonsense.

ps : This isn't the first study to link fossil fuel emissions to health risks. So nothing to be greatly sceptical about here.