droo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:39:32 -0500, Michael Maskalans
> <dml@tepidcola.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If I can burn a quart of diesel to go the same distance that it takes a
>> half gallon of gasoline, how is the diesel "dirtier"?
>>
>> Just because you can occasionally see the exhaust doesn't make it worse.
>>
>>
>
> Yes it does. Soot is what makes smoke visible and soot is very dirty
> stuff.
Physically dirty perhaps but don't ignore that soot does something that
other emissions don't - fall back to the ground.
> That applies to all fires. Thick black smoke coming from your
> fire place means you aren't getting a complete burn and you are putting
> out alot of particulate pollution. Diesel is getting cleaner but it is
> still not as clean as gasoline. I poked around and found this link:
> http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm
UCS are actually whackos in my opinion - but I don't have the time to go
digging for people who agree with my argument, I'd rather go get some
fresh seafood while I'm still in reach of San Fran. But in any case my
car is not going to give me Black Lung Disease. Where were the stats on
more lung cancer and worse air quality in Europe that should follow
their claims about the soot issues?
Oh well... I should also point out that their refining stats are
comparing to MTBE re-gas. MTBE is a carcinogen that California forced
their refineries to use instead of ethonal. It's fine when burned, but
leaks into groundwater and is far worse than the fuel that goes along
with it. maybe I'll find an in-date (Tier-II is here, so is ULSD. MTBE
is thankfully gone) article at some point.
-- +-- Mike Maskalans ---------------- Rochester, NY ----------+ | '98 Dakota CC, SAS on 40s '84 RamCharger 4x4, plow truck | | '02 Jetta TDI 5sp, daily '97 Intrepid, not on the road | +-------------------- <http://mike.tepidcola.com/trucks/> --+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2008 - 18:47:21 EST