|
|
Post by OBC John on Oct 23, 2017 17:04:44 GMT
Interesting read here about the oft-quoted figures for how many people diesels kill every year. Another case of "Lies. Damn lies. And statistics." Or "Nobody really knows so let's make up some figures." www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270 |
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Oct 23, 2017 17:27:48 GMT
Interesting read here about the oft-quoted figures for how many people diesels kill every year. Another case of "Lies. Damn lies. And statistics." Or "Nobody really knows so let's make up some figures." www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270John, whilst is is clearly true that one can never trust figures present by governments in search of excuses to levy additional taxation; witness the punitive VED levied for the production of completely harmless CO2, it is undeniable that diesel emissions are highly toxic, because of much higher NOx content, much more so than those from petrol engines, also not entirely innocent, and that breathing in the vicinity of a running diesel is uncomfortable in the extreme. Worse, is that the search for increased power and less visible particulate emissions in recent years, has actually made the deadly emission worse in most cases. Better to breathe a few chuncks of soot which makes one cough, than to be quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily. |
|
|
|
Post by OBC John on Oct 23, 2017 17:35:51 GMT
Interesting read here about the oft-quoted figures for how many people diesels kill every year. Another case of "Lies. Damn lies. And statistics." Or "Nobody really knows so let's make up some figures." www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39129270John, whilst is is clearly true that one can never trust figures present by governments in search of excuses to levy additional taxation; witness the punitive VED levied for the production of completely harmless CO2, it is undeniable that diesel emissions are highly toxic, because of much higher NOx content, much more so than those from petrol engines, also not entirely innocent, and that breathing in the vicinity of a running diesel is uncomfortable in the extreme. Worse, is that the search for increased power and less visible particulate emissions in recent years, has actually made the deadly emission worse in most cases. Better to breathe a few chuncks of soot which makes one cough, than to be quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily. Again, Phil, very articulate and eloquent. But where's the meat? Where's the proof? Not just "everybody knows". It seems that everybody is guessing. And the recent article on emissions showed the petrol engine throwing out more NOx than the diesel when measured under "real world" conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Oct 23, 2017 18:46:17 GMT
John, whilst is is clearly true that one can never trust figures present by governments in search of excuses to levy additional taxation; witness the punitive VED levied for the production of completely harmless CO2, it is undeniable that diesel emissions are highly toxic, because of much higher NOx content, much more so than those from petrol engines, also not entirely innocent, and that breathing in the vicinity of a running diesel is uncomfortable in the extreme. Worse, is that the search for increased power and less visible particulate emissions in recent years, has actually made the deadly emission worse in most cases. Better to breathe a few chuncks of soot which makes one cough, than to be quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily. Again, Phil, very articulate and eloquent. But where's the meat? Where's the proof? Not just "everybody knows". It seems that everybody is guessing. And the recent article on emissions showed the petrol engine throwing out more NOx than the diesel when measured under "real world" conditions. Yes John, a clapped out petrol engine compared to a diesel in its prime, using the much less polluting pre dpf technology. Apples and spacecraft. |
|
|
|
Post by OBC John on Oct 23, 2017 18:55:49 GMT
Again, Phil, very articulate and eloquent. But where's the meat? Where's the proof? Not just "everybody knows". It seems that everybody is guessing. And the recent article on emissions showed the petrol engine throwing out more NOx than the diesel when measured under "real world" conditions. Yes John, a clapped out petrol engine compared to a diesel in its prime, using the much less polluting pre dpf technology. Apples and spacecraft. But at least it's empirical evidence, Phil. Not just guesswork and baseless statements, like " . . . than to be quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily." Where's your evidence for that? Very dramatic but belongs in a fictional novel. |
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Oct 24, 2017 3:02:52 GMT
Yes John, a clapped out petrol engine compared to a diesel in its prime, using the much less polluting pre dpf technology. Apples and spacecraft. But at least it's empirical evidence, Phil. Not just guesswork and baseless statements, like " . . . than to be quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily." Where's your evidence for that? Very dramatic but belongs in a fictional novel. John, quite right; empirical evidence of fraud resulting in a headline test result designed to mislead. Much the same as the statements issued by the motor industry claiming that all their diesel engines comply with, current legislation, and are the cleanest ever; they do indeed, and they certainly emit less soot, on the other hand, the legislation was formulated around the diesel engine, and the invisible emissions are somewhat more harmful than the soot that the modern diesel hides. Literary licence perhaps, but far from baseless: www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/diesel-cars-are-10-times-more-toxic-than-trucks-and-buses-data-showswww.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/15/diesel-cars-pump-50-per-cent-toxic-emissions-should-major-report/www.air-quality.org.uk/26.phpwww.theengineer.co.uk/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars/Search Results: Fact Check: are diesel cars really more polluting than petrol cars? theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars... 2 May 2017 - This article rightly sums up the outlook that new, well maintained diesel vehicles have quite similar levels of particulate emissions to petrol cars, although they are still higher. However, most vehicle fleets are dominated by the older and considerably more polluting, earlier emission standard vehicles. Vehicle Emissions | Air Pollution | City Diesel | LPG | CNG www.air-quality.org.uk/26.phpHowever, diesel cars have very different emission characteristics, and an increase in ... In fact particulate emissions from petrol cars are so low that they are not ... Fact Check: are diesel cars really more polluting than petrol cars ... www.theengineer.co.uk/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-... 8 May 2017 - So, while diesel fuel contains slightly more carbon (2.68kg CO₂/litre) than petrol (2.31kg CO₂/litre), overall CO₂ emissions of a diesel car ... Diesel Engines and Public Health | Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/...pollution.../diesel-engines-and-public.htmlHealth Impacts of Diesel Pollution. Diesel-powered vehicles and equipment account for nearly half of all nitrogen oxides (NOx) and more than two-thirds of all particulate matter (PM) emissions from US transportation sources. Particulate matter or soot is created during the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. [PDF]Five facts about diesel the car industry would rather not tell you www.transportenvironment.org/.../2015_09_Five_facts_about_diesel_FINAL.p... This briefing provides five facts about diesel cars that ... The emissions from diesel cars of nitrogen oxides on the road are typically five times higher than. I could probably overflow the forum's capacity for storage with hard evidence of the deadly effects of diesel emissions; there you are John, a little more literary licence, but closer to reality than a harmless diesel. |
|
|
|
Post by OBC John on Oct 24, 2017 17:57:14 GMT
Give me time. I'm trawling through the "evidence" presented. Be back soon . . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by OBC John on Oct 25, 2017 9:35:35 GMT
OK, unless I've missed something, the articles you've presented to defend your case all relate to comparing the polluting effects of diesel and petrol engines. (Although one or two are hardly conclusive or damning of diesel engines).
But I started this thread with an article which questions the statistics of the number of deaths attributed to diesel engine pollution. Not about the actual polluting effects of either fuel.
So I absolutely stand by my opening post that "the 40,000 early deaths per year is a statistical construct". A guess, at best. At worst . . . a damn lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Oct 25, 2017 10:45:40 GMT
John, if you care to read, and digest my first response you will note that we are in complete agreement regarding the statistics. Certainly, some of the sources I provided links to are not entirely conclusive; that’s because I always seek the truth of a matter, rather than only that which supports a prejudiced viewpoint. If diesel technology ever advances to the point where it offers superior performance, power delivery, reliability, refinement and less toxic emissions than that of petrol, I will be among the first to convert, and inform others. Until then, however, I will stay with petrol, unless, in the meantime electric propulsion becomes superior and clean. For the time being, petrol is the best we have, in all respects which matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by OBC John on Oct 25, 2017 11:03:30 GMT
OK Phil, I hear you. But you use very evocative language when talking about diesels; "deadly emissions", "highly toxic", "quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily". And then casually link these to deaths. Whereas in truth, no-one on the planet has had "Air pollution" written on their death certificate as cause of death. And any statistical linkage is spurious at best.
So whatever your legitimate reasons for disliking diesels, please stop telling us that they are killing us. Until, that is, someone comes up with actual evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Jan 22, 2018 7:15:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Mar 14, 2018 19:53:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RS5litre on Mar 14, 2018 20:52:44 GMT
V8 petrol all the way!
|
|
|
|
Post by JimC64 on Mar 14, 2018 21:59:55 GMT
OK Phil, I hear you. But you use very evocative language when talking about diesels; "deadly emissions", "highly toxic", "quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily". And then casually link these to deaths. Whereas in truth, no-one on the planet has had "Air pollution" written on their death certificate as cause of death. And any statistical linkage is spurious at best. So whatever your legitimate reasons for disliking diesels, please stop telling us that they are killing us. Until, that is, someone comes up with actual evidence.
I'm with you John...
All this talk of deadly diesels, 2040 for all electric cars, petrols and diesels to go the way of the dodo etc
Not by 2040 they won't and you can take that to the bank imo
Just bought myself another, newish euro 6 emissions that'll do me for the next few years, no panic here...
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by davevx on Mar 14, 2018 23:54:44 GMT
my old rattly diesel is playing up in protest
For the last few weeks getting 60 plus mpg
Do the igniumn engines have a running in sweet spot , mines about 34,000
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Mar 15, 2018 4:34:23 GMT
OK Phil, I hear you. But you use very evocative language when talking about diesels; "deadly emissions", "highly toxic", "quietly given lung cancer as surely as if one smoked sixty cigarettes daily". And then casually link these to deaths. Whereas in truth, no-one on the planet has had "Air pollution" written on their death certificate as cause of death. And any statistical linkage is spurious at best. So whatever your legitimate reasons for disliking diesels, please stop telling us that they are killing us. Until, that is, someone comes up with actual evidence. Your own posts have a certain "style" to them that means you're always on the edge or in hot water having been removed from a few forums I believe
All this talk of deadly diesels, 2040 for all electric cars, petrols and diesels to go the way of the dodo etc
Not by 2040 they won't and you can take that to the bank imo
Just bought myself another, newish euro 6 emissions that'll do me for the next few years, no panic here...
Jim
1) Yes, certain people don't care for the truth, especially when it's supported by evidence. 2) I doubt that either, but I'll keep my mind open; my Grandfather at the age of thirty one could not have guessed where the Wright brothers first powered flight would lead, even by WW1 just a few years later. I wouldn't bank on anything, especially governments making the right decisions; they did after all persuade all the mugs to buy diesel. 3) You can lead a horse to water. |
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Mar 15, 2018 4:59:38 GMT
my old rattly diesel is playing up in protest For the last few weeks getting 60 plus mpg Do the igniumn engines have a running in sweet spot , mines about 34,000 Fuel consumption is largely governed by driving conditions, and style; there is just a 10 - 15% fuel consumption difference between petrol and diesel for closely equivalent engines, in otherwise identical cars, under identical conditions. I'm sure that some dieselers could get 100 mpg if they fitted a magic tuning box  , or 150 mpg, and 0 - 200 mph in 30seconds if they fitted two of them ; even my XJR does 99 mpg if I accelerate to xxx mph, come off the throttle as I hit average mpg reset, and allow the car to slow to xx mph before taking a photo of the display. The XF display is more difficult to cheat with for forum photographic purposes, but it can be done, as evidenced elsewhere. Because I tend to do more xxx than xx, and most of the latter almost stationary around town, what it has achieved over the past C3,000 miles is 19 mpg. At 34,000 I should hope the igniumn (Ingenium?) is still sweet, for a diesel. If it still runs well at 340,000, I will be impressed. |
|
|
|
Post by JimC64 on Mar 15, 2018 9:38:16 GMT
Your own posts have a certain "style" to them that means you're always on the edge or in hot water having been removed from a few forums I believe
All this talk of deadly diesels, 2040 for all electric cars, petrols and diesels to go the way of the dodo etc
Not by 2040 they won't and you can take that to the bank imo
Just bought myself another, newish euro 6 emissions that'll do me for the next few years, no panic here...
Jim
1) Yes, certain people don't care for the truth, especially when it's supported by evidence. 2) I doubt that either, but I'll keep my mind open; my Grandfather at the age of thirty one could not have guessed where the Wright brothers first powered flight would lead, even by WW1 just a few years later. I wouldn't bank on anything, especially governments making the right decisions; they did after all persuade all the mugs to buy diesel. 3) You can lead a horse to water.
Dear dear dear Phil, really? The "sorry state of affairs" thread was closed down, but that's not enough for you as you carry that on here, enough is enough.
You choose to "quote" me as above but added in text from the other post to continue your tirade, I have never used the line "Your own posts have a certain "style" to them that means you're always on the edge or in hot water having been removed from a few forums I believe" in this thread. In the words of Elsa, let it go, let it go...
As usual your certain ""style"" or lack thereof means you choose to call me and anyone else who has bought or owns a diesel car, a Mug!!
So far it looks like we have examples of name calling, harassing, trolling even, please Phil let it go. Take a deep breath, count to ten and step away from the PC for a minute and take time to think before you reply. Please lets get back to the topic on hand which as a memory jogger is Myth of the DEADLY diesel
Thanks Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Mar 15, 2018 10:03:39 GMT
Try reading and understanding the whole thread.
I will always treat you as you treat others, whether that’s me, or someone else.
You can bury the hatchet, and be nice or ignore those you have a problem with, just as it pleases you.
|
|
|
|
Post by davevx on Mar 15, 2018 15:02:10 GMT
If we had any published rules they might be something like this
Be polite. Under no circumstances will personal insults nor impolite comments nor antagonistic remarks be tolerated. There will be no trolling nor winding-up campaigns, nor anything that spoils the atmosphere or tone of the forum.
Nothing personal. When you have a clash of opinion, make sure you argue the point, and never make the argument in any way personal.
But we don’t want rules do we😇
|
|
|
|
Post by PsiFox on Mar 15, 2018 21:01:03 GMT
Are you going to engrave those on stone tablets and carry them down the M3?
|
|
|
|
Post by davevx on Mar 16, 2018 9:14:42 GMT
I’m on it
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Mar 16, 2018 9:28:53 GMT
That’ll kill your fuel consumption.😎 |
|
|
|
Post by davevx on Mar 16, 2018 11:18:19 GMT
It’s weird since I got a spare wheel in the boot the fuel consumptions gone up. No I mean down 🙃
or maybe the diet is working 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Jun 17, 2018 4:25:44 GMT
Not much of a myth:
Not one diesel vehicle tested complied with the legal pollution limits in actual use.
The true impact of many vehicles can e checked here:
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Apr 8, 2019 16:29:17 GMT
A little more evidence against the diesel:
The Mueller report may not show collusion between Russia and President Trump's campaign, but European anti-trust regulators say they have found collusion among German automakers to avoid cleaning up tailpipe emissions.
On Friday, anti-trust regulators for the European Union charged BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen with colluding to block the introduction of effective diesel and gasoline emissions technology.
Two years ago, European Union officials raided the offices of all three automakers looking for evidence of such collusion after tests in the U.S. and Europe showed that diesels produced by the company (as well as, later, in Jeeps and Ram trucks produced by Fiat Chrysler), emitted as much as 40 times the allowable limits of nitrogen oxides when driven on the roads.
READ THIS: EU investigating diesel collusion among Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, VW: report
The diesel scandal showed that the cars were designed only to operate their emissions control systems to maximum effect when the cars were run in the confines of emissions tests.
In letters to the three automakers, officials alleged that the collusion took place during technical meetings of the "circle of five" German automakers, including Volkswagen divisions Porsche and Audi, between 2006 and 2014, according to a Reuters report.
“Daimler, VW, and BMW may have broken EU competition rules. As a result, European consumers may have been denied the opportunity to buy cars with the best available technology,” said European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager in a statement to the press.
CHECK OUT: German authorities uncover emissions-cheating collusion among diesel automakers
The charges are focused on the automakers' use of selective catalytic reduction systems, or urea injection, as well as "Otto" particulate filters for gas-powered cars.
In two class-action lawsuits in the U.S., involving later versions of Volkswagen's 3.0-liter diesel V-6 and 2.0-liter diesel turbo-4 engines, the cars were found to utilize too little urea "diesel exhaust fluid," to effectively clean up emissions. These are the cars that Volkswagen did not buy back, but updated the software to use greater amounts of urea.
READ MORE: Germany fines BMW over diesel emissions
Volkswagen has already paid $1.2 billion in fines in Germany over its diesel emissions shortfalls. BMW and Daimler have paid $9.5 million. All three automakers have shifted their focus from developing new diesels to spending billions of dollars to develop electric cars and build up supplies of batteries to power them.
EU regulators said the new charges are not related to emissions cheat devices. but to failing to offer the latest, most effective emissions reduction technologies to European consumers (for both gas and diesel engines.)
Volkswagen and BMW each face hefty additional fines related to the charges. BMW set aside $1.1 billion to cover possible fines, but told Reuters it will fight the charges by every legal means available. Volkswagen has not responded to the charges, saying it needed time to review them. Daimler does not expect to be fined, because it alerted authorities to the alleged collusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by philayl on Apr 9, 2019 14:57:56 GMT
How does this work out, a "deadly" 1.6L diesel going 67 miles on one gallon of fuel versus a V8 petrol gobbling up approx three gallons of fuel to cover the same distance. While the emissions from a petrol might be less it must be offset by the extra fuel burned, therefore extra emissions. I think we can all agree that all ICE's emit toxins, there is no such thing as a totally clean ICE, even using electric vehicles the electricity produced has a trade off. Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Apr 9, 2019 17:06:13 GMT
How does this work out, a "deadly" 1.6L diesel going 67 miles on one gallon of fuel versus a V8 petrol gobbling up approx three gallons of fuel to cover the same distance. While the emissions from a petrol might be less it must be offset by the extra fuel burned, therefore extra emissions. I think we can all agree that all ICE's emit toxins, there is no such thing as a totally clean ICE, even using electric vehicles the electricity produced has a trade off. Phil There is some truth in that Phil, but only as far as CO2 is concerned. The health hazard isn't CO2 though, it's NOx emissions which are much lower from petrol engines, even in the example you cite. Unfortunately even urea injection doesn't solve that problem adequately. Whilst it is true that the car manufacturers have cheated the emissions tests, much of the blame for the current situation can be laid at the door of bureaucrats who in the 1980s decreed that catalytic converters were the answer, when lean burn technology would have provided a better emission solution for petrol engines, with the added bonus of improved fuel economy, and later when they decided that diesels should be fitted with DPFs which have converted visible particulate emissions into smaller less visible, but more carcinogenic ones. The trend towards direct injection for petrol engines has perversely made their emissions worse for our health, at the same time increasing long term maintenance requirements.
Engineers should have been allowed to make the decisions, not ignorant government employees, guided by pseudo scientists looking for bigger research grants.
As for electric vehicles, of course having no tailpipe there are few running emissions beyond tyre and brake dust, but as well as the emissions from power generation, there is also the environmental question of battery production and disposal, at least until new technology is found.
It is difficult to see how our transport needs can ever be completely clean, but there are many things more damaging to the environment and our health than private motor vehicles; I suspect that much of the noise is now about finding new excuses to levy ever higher taxes on a group not well equipped to fight government policy, whereas the heavy transport, air travel and shipping industries are.
|
|
|
|
Post by philayl on Apr 10, 2019 8:15:20 GMT
Phil, I fully agree with your assessment about excuses to levy more or punitive taxes, but let's be honest, when have any politicians worked towards the best interests of the people and not themselves. Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by etypephil on Apr 10, 2019 9:26:04 GMT
Phil, I fully agree with your assessment about excuses to levy more or punitive taxes, but let's be honest, when have any politicians worked towards the best interests of the people and not themselves. Phil Not during my adult life.😎 We can live in hope though. |
|
, or 150 mpg, and 0 - 200 mph in 30seconds if they fitted two of them 
