RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 17:23
There's obviously a general consesus that toxins are harmful, there's no consensus regarding the limits though, this is evident in different countries having different limits, only the EU just blindly followed the recommendation of a 40µg/m³ limit from the WHO which is literally a 'guesstimated' number ... when they had to decide on it the WHO did not have a sufficient data basis about the health impacts of toxins from exhaust gasses so they looked at studies about the health impact of gas stoves in private homes (which is funny but more about that later) even though this had little to do with traffic and they ended up literally just estimating that a 40µg/m³ limit should do.
It's a guessed number from 1997 of which they thought it would be a good limit to keep people healthy and any time anyone questions it politicians just say "yea but it's a suggestion of the WHO and they're not just anyone, they're the WHO"....
In 2005 the german Helmholtz institute got tasked by the Federal Environment Agency with confirming that number so they compared health data of rural and urban citizens and straight up blamed the slightly lower life expectancy (a few days less on average) of urbanites on the worse air quality -they then put that into a model and that gave them 50000 lost years of life or 6000 dead people a year thanks to NOx.
The Federal Environment Agency even admits that they can't prove those numbers.
The Helmholtz study is what a bunch of pneumologists disagree with, saying they've turned a random correlation into causation, that it's a numbers game with statistics that is unsubtantiated - you know, they're the ones dealing with patients and their illnesses.
Btw one of them was the director of a clinic which was specialised in treating people who worked coal and the president of the German Respiratory Society.
And if you're perfectly honest, those numbers are nothing less than fearmongering, some EU agency even claims that NOx kills 12000 people a year in germany alone.
The US agencies specifically do not publish any such statistics because they say there's no scientific foundation for it.
But yea ... that study is what reaffirmed the 40µg/m³ limit.
What is even funnier is the fact that the NOx limit at the workplace is ........ 950µg/m³.... a place people spend 40h a week at can exceed the limit for the air outside by almost 24x ... funny eh?
So all in all i believe me using the term 'arbitrary' isn't wrong.
Yes it is! In science estimations are normal, not everything is measurable, but that´s far from meaning it´s arbitrary, very far actually
The exact limit is impossible to know with any certainty, you can´t put a group of different humans into a controlled atmosphere to force him to breath a controlled concentration of NOx for 50 years and see the consequences, so they´re forced to make an estimation. And if someone have to make an estimation, I can´t rely on anyone better than WHO, that´s exactly their job mate!
We´re talking about the health of millions people, it´s perfectly normal any estimation will be conservative, that´s also their job, ensuring their recomendations are not risking anyones health.
Also, NOx is taken as a reference, but there´re a lot more toxic substances in ICE fumes
Anycase it´s same debate than CC naysayers.... "if they can´t predict how CC will change the planet accurately, with dates and exact numbers, then I won´t rely on any of their statements", assuming we humans are so smart we should know everthing in any field, and if we can´t prove it it´s because it´s false. This is arrogance, an asthonishing arrogance way too frequent in we humans sincerely
We can´t know everything, and we don´t know everything, so some estimations are mandatory. Maybe you´d rely on some US agency estimation (yes, his is also an estimation, or where´s the data supporting that limit is too low?) better than on WHO estimations. IMHO that´s a HUGE mistake, US has always been extremelly pasive about regulations to put some limit to companies trying to make profit at the cost of someones health. Their alimentary regulations are a joke compared to EU regulations, they´re one of the few first world countries who systematically reject to join any environmental regulation, etc.
If any US agency disagree with WHO estimations, I will always rely on WHO
RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 17:23
The stations usually measure right next to roads.
Then what´s the reason you were surprised about this same subject here?
RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 01:04
three exceed the limit slightly and only two (next to the main highway ... duh ...) exceed the limits "a lot"
RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 17:23
There's some wiggle room regarding the proper placement of those stations, but they're generally really close to points of heavy traffic, some countries/cities place their stations in reasonable more open places away from main intersections, which is a good interpretation of the regulations since it gives a good indicator of the air quality in the city, the germans are, well, german enough to take it to the extreme by putting them right next to large roads at big intersections where cars stand still for half of the time which then obviously gives you high measurements.
I watched an interesting report some time ago, in it a group of scientists from the Fraunhofer Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure Systems did their own measurements at one of the worst stations in Stuttgart because they believe the stations are placed in a way to give the highest possible results, not to give a meaningful measurement (as per regulations).
For particles they got 8µg/m³, they estimated that 25% of that was from diesels, the remainder from tyres and brakes.
The NOx values were reaching 60µg/m³ right next to the official station but were already 10% lower just by measuring on a pedestrian bridge above the intersection, which is just a few meters above the road surface and the acceleration of the cars at the traffic lights did not give huge spikes anymore, the moment they went to a park across the road just 50m (!) away from that measuring station, you know, the place where people spend most of their time and the NOx levels were at 10-20 µg/m³, so 25-50% of the limit and Stuttgart is supposedly the city with the worst air here.
The people responsible for the placement (green party, duh) claimed the professor and his team were incompetent and that the measurements are being done there because people live in apartments right above it - so that team did some measurements in one of those apartments right above the station ...
Whilst the official station outside measured 70µg/m³ they had 80µg/m³ inside thanks to the gas heater in the apartment (and they have that level consistenly).
They then lit a few candles and got 140µg/m³ (it would be easy to ban candles, no?)
Then they cooked some quick food on the gas cooker and it got to 1300µg/m³ (why is no one banning gas stoves?) ... and if gas stoves cause such 'highly toxic' air at such high levels, where did the WHO get the (in relation) very low number of 40 from?
The report also mentioned another city that doesn't even allow traffic in the city center, yet their station says the air exceeded the emission limits, ironically the air exceeded the limits when there was a marathon and barely any traffic, the city also installed their own passive NOx collectors and came to the conclusion that the air pollution is far from the limits, yet there might be a diesel ban coming because the one official station measures absolute bs.
Maybe that´s the reason they always recommend to open some window when ANY burning device is used, cooks, stoves, anything, or the reason it´s mandatory to install vent holes on kitchens. At least here in Spain it is, if it´s not mandatory in Germany you should ask for them inmediatly instead of worrying about CC, agree with that
RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 17:23
I watched an interesting report some time ago, in it a group of scientists from the Fraunhofer Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure Systems did their own measurements at one of the worst stations in Stuttgart because they believe the stations are placed in a way to give the highest possible results, not to give a meaningful measurement (as per regulations).
For particles they got 8µg/m³, they estimated that 25% of that was from diesels, the remainder from tyres and brakes.
The NOx values were reaching 60µg/m³ right next to the official station but were already 10% lower just by measuring on a pedestrian bridge above the intersection, which is just a few meters above the road surface and the acceleration of the cars at the traffic lights did not give huge spikes anymore, the moment they went to a park across the road just 50m (!) away from that measuring station, you know, the place where people spend most of their time and the NOx levels were at 10-20 µg/m³, so 25-50% of the limit and Stuttgart is supposedly the city with the worst air here.
The people responsible for the placement (green party, duh) claimed the professor and his team were incompetent and that the measurements are being done there because people live in apartments right above it - so that team did some measurements in one of those apartments right above the station ...
Whilst the official station outside measured 70µg/m³ they had 80µg/m³ inside thanks to the gas heater in the apartment (and they have that level consistenly).
They then lit a few candles and got 140µg/m³ (it would be easy to ban candles, no?)
Then they cooked some quick food on the gas cooker and it got to 1300µg/m³ (why is no one banning gas stoves?) ... and if gas stoves cause such 'highly toxic' air at such high levels, where did the WHO get the (in relation) very low number of 40 from?
The report also mentioned another city that doesn't even allow traffic in the city center, yet their station says the air exceeded the emission limits, ironically the air exceeded the limits when there was a marathon and barely any traffic, the city also installed their own passive NOx collectors and came to the conclusion that the air pollution is far from the limits, yet there might be a diesel ban coming because the one official station measures absolute bs.
Interesting, but reading your interpretation of their report looks like that institute don´t agree traffic fumes are a problem...
Then I wonder about the reason they´ve developed the longest bus in the world, with electrical/hybrid power
https://www.ivi.fraunhofer.de/en/resear ... grand.html
Looks contradictory, doesn´t it? Or maybe your interpretation of their report is not too accurate
RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 17:23
Given how bad the average driver is and how late everyone is braking it's will probably be more towards 50% and then you still have tyres.
Agree, but then you´re agreeing your previous statement about EV doing nothing to reduce particles was wrong, as they´re reducing around 50% of brake pads dust, right?
With current weather, with lot of wind, no, obviously it´s not. Problem comes when there´s no rain and wind for some consecutive days. Then NOx concentration raises dramatically. Basically the air quality we breath into cities depend on the weather, wich should not be the case I think
RZS10 wrote: ↑14 Aug 2019, 17:23
To me it seems like the discussion about climate change and all the surrounding aspects is in large parts fearmongering and in some parts just paranoia ... i've witnessed some pathetic individual having a complete mental brakedown over those latest "we only have 18 months in order to save the planet" nonsense ... that autistic kid being paraded around like she knows jack --- about climate is a nice touch though ... it's "but think of the kids!" turned up to 11.
Imagine this hypothetic scenario. You´re a scientist working for WHO, and know CC is real as there are hundreds evidences, arctic perfmafrost getting thinner, coral reefs disapearing, weather becoming more extreme all around the world, CO2 in atmosphere raising to higher levels than in previous 400.000 years and also increasing at a much higher rate than ever before... but we can´t predict what will be the consequences in 10, 50 or 100 years because the matter is too complex to simulate...
What would you do? How would you warn people about this huge problem?
They´re forced to do bold claims to warn people. We humans are not too keen to accept huge changes, so if you know a huge change is needed, the only way to make people conscious is making bold estimations, or even exageratting to make people afraid of the consequences if we continue this path.
But then some people will take those exagerations as an evidence they know nothing about the subject
Obviously there will be people doing stupid claims, but that´s not an evidence their reasons to do those stupid claims are wrong