Leaf to go gas / electric?

[kubel]

The LEAF is going gas. I think they are going to call it the "Versa". You might be able to find one or two at your dealer.

 

[gbarry42]

The pranks are for April 1st, not May 1st.

But I was shocked yesterday when I let a guy drive my Leaf who is building his own EV. [...] he asked, "How far can it go before the gas engine kicks on?" I was shocked. Then when I explained that there was no gas engine, he was shocked.

Awful lot of shocking going on in that electric car of yours. Maybe it's just the low humidity.

 

[RegGuheert]

Nonsense!

Really? Try telling that to the many surviving family members of electrical linemen who died of leukemia.

You have been exposed to cancer in the food you eat, the water you drink, the air you breathe...

I couldn't agree more!

...so why worry about electrical currents or the non ionizing radiation from a cell phone or the TV and radio stations?

Non sequitur. Please note that cancer rates are rising the world over. I believe there are many culprits. Many people believe that low-level electromagnetic radiation is not carcinogenic because it is non-ionizing. In my opinion, that takes an overly-simplistic view of what goes on in our cells. Take a look at cells which have been exposed to non-ionizing ultrasound radiation. They look amazingly similar to cancer cells. Feel free to sleep under an electric blanket if you like. I'll pass.

And for a real shocker you are radioactive too - it's called potassium 40 and is responsible for 20 mrem of radiation dose every year you live.

:?: And?

 

[Smidge204]

Many people believe that low-level electromagnetic radiation is not carcinogenic because it is non-ionizing. In my opinion, that takes an overly-simplistic view of what goes on in our cells. Take a look at cells which have been exposed to non-ionizing ultrasound radiation. They look amazingly similar to cancer cells. Feel free to sleep under an electric blanket if you like. I'll pass.

More specifically, there is no proposed mechanism for how non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer. At least not that I'm aware of. While any correlation between EM exposure and disease is very interesting and worth further study, without a testable mechanism you can't rightly link them causally - you may as well blame the rate of brain cancer among electrical workers on the hardhats they wear for all the good it'll do. Or, I would propose, exposure to chemicals once used and now known to be carcinogenic. Insulating materials, transformer oils, solders, cleaning agents, etc.

Case studies with humans are varied and inconclusive. Animal studies have all turned up negative. Go ahead and take whatever precautions you think are necessary but there's no compelling reason to panic over it. (Also, that "EMF detector" you bought online for $100 is a total waste of money...)

In fact, electrical fields can apparently be used to cure cancer, without affecting healthy cells, and there ARE proposed causal mechanisms for why and how that works. There ARE clinical studies that show it to be effective, at least in the situations where it has been tested so far.

By the way: Ultrasound is not radiation; it's mechanical vibration.
=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

More specifically, there is no proposed mechanism for how non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer. At least not that I'm aware of.

Me either. But the thing about cancer is that it really doesn't care whether or not its victims understand the cause of the cancer. They still end up just as dead!

While any correlation between EM exposure and disease is very interesting and worth further study, without a testable mechanism you can't rightly link them causally...

No. But when so many studies show a correlation, we all have reason to take pause and decide if we are willing to expose ourselves and our families to similar forms of radiation.

- you may as well blame the rate of brain cancer among electrical workers on the hardhats they wear for all the good it'll do.

Is there a correlation between brain cancer and hardhat wearing electrical workers? If not, then that straw man has no validity.

Or, I would propose, exposure to chemicals once used and now known to be carcinogenic. Insulating materials, transformer oils, solders, cleaning agents, etc.

Yes, they may, as some of those things are suspected carcinogens. Still, it is a non sequitur to say this invalidates the possibility that long-term exposure to 60-Hz electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer.

Case studies with humans are varied and inconclusive. Animal studies have all turned up negative.

So that does not make a case either way. Like all cases where the profitability of industries are impacted, many of these studies are funded by less-than impartial parties. Here is a study by NIH which finds:

These findings offer some support for the hypothesis that electric and magnetic fields may be carcinogenic.

Is that proof? Certainly not. Are this and similar studies a good reason to consider that long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation might be worth minimizing? Absolutely!

Go ahead and take whatever precautions you think are necessary but there's no compelling reason to panic over it.

I'm not panicking over anything. But I'm also not willing to bet my life that it is completely safe simply because medical research has not discovered the cause of the correlations.

(Also, that "EMF detector" you bought online for $100 is a total waste of money...)

:?: O.K. ...

In fact, electrical fields can apparently be used to cure cancer, without affecting healthy cells, and there ARE proposed causal mechanisms for why and how that works. There ARE clinical studies that show it to be effective, at least in the situations where it has been tested so far.

Yes, and poisons and knives can be used to treat cancer, also, so I hardly see how this supports your position.

By the way: Ultrasound is not radiation; it's mechanical vibration.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the same claim of "it's not ionizing therefore it is safe" claim is made for ultrasound. I don't buy that one either.

Look, I work in the cell-phone industry, which has claimed for decades that radiation from cell phones is completely safe. I saw a keynote speech at our industry's premier conference two decades ago discussing how the radiation from cell phones was not ionizing and was therefore safe. This is so even in the face of cases in the 1990s when customers would develop cancerous tumors right next to where the 1-W transmissions were made by their cell phones. Is that proof of a causal relationship? No.

But I will say that the group that I work in today sells simulators to many of the world's cell-phone manufacturers to calculate the SAR of cellular radiation into the brain. Why? Because even though no one has proven that there is a causal link, there was enough concern that it was decided that minimizing this absobtion by design is probably a good thing. I do think cell phones are much safer now than they used to be, if for no other reason than they transmit at much lower power levels. And, yes, I talk on a cell phone a LOT!

P.S. Sorry to all for straying so far off topic...

 

[aqn]

"So, where do you put the gas?"

In my other vehicles.

Good one!