How much do you care about pre emissions

[5030]

I still maintain that the owners that modify their pickup trucks to 'Roll Coal' are the biggest offenders and should be fined or their trucks confiscated for it. My 97, 7.3 is modified with a full Gale Banks kit and it don't 'roll coal' ever. Maybe a puff when working hard, but that is it. Gale knows how to extract additional power with out excessive black (particulate) smoke constantly. In fact my Banks Kit carries the EPA certification tag for my year of engine and it's displayed on the radiator support for anyone to see.

 

[Snobdds]

Dead lakes were dead lakes, and now many are not after some reasonable pollution controls were put in place? Doing things better in terms of pollution costs somebody something, but looking back, don't you think its worth it in this case?
For me, in southern ontario, we used to have a big coal fired power plant and we used to have dozens of smog days bad enough to affect sensitive peoples health. Now the plant is gone and we have hardly any smog days. Maybe electricity is 3% more for having no coal plants, but that's fine with me....
Without your health, you have not much, so I thinks its worth working towards less polluting technologies.

Just because there is correlation, it does not mean causation.

There are many things in nature that are acidic. There are also things in nature that counteract acid.

I think we should be careful with the broad conclusions.

 

[IndyIan]

Just because there is correlation, it does not mean causation.

There are many things in nature that are acidic. There are also things in nature that counteract acid.

I think we should be careful with the broad conclusions.

Well yes, but also its pretty reasonable to assume putting less sulfur dioxide into the air, causes less acids with sulfur in them to form in rain?
See figures 4 and 7 in this paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333256605_A_novel_ecological_state_at_Bear_Pond_Adirondack_Mountains_NY_USA_following_acidification_and_partial_recovery#pf9

The pH of precipitation isn't the only factor in a lakes pH, but for many of them it could be the only that that has changed over 150 years.

The abstract of this paper also highlights the decrease in pollution falling from sky since more strict pollution controls have been put in place.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231020307640#preview-section-abstract

 

[Snobdds]

Well yes, but also its pretty reasonable to assume putting less sulfur dioxide into the air, causes less acids with sulfur in them to form in rain?
See figures 4 and 7 in this paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333256605_A_novel_ecological_state_at_Bear_Pond_Adirondack_Mountains_NY_USA_following_acidification_and_partial_recovery#pf9

The pH of precipitation isn't the only factor in a lakes pH, but for many of them it could be the only that that has changed over 150 years.

The abstract of this paper also highlights the decrease in pollution falling from sky since more strict pollution controls have been put in place.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231020307640#preview-section-abstract

You're still drawing assumptions and attributing them to a cause. "Pretty reasonable to assume" is nonsense in this discussion.

Have you ever heard the expression..."the solution to pollution is through dilution".

Rain, not run off as acids drop out of suspension, is such a small % of a waters overall volume, is in direct violation to what we humans know to counter act pollution. Dropping the equillivent of a drop of acid in a swimming pool is not going to kill off all life.

Also think of this. Humans and life ingest acid stuff all the time. Vinegars are great in salads, and they are acidic. Life can handle more acid than some scientist will lead you to believe. After all...it's a natural byproduct.

 

[IndyIan]

You're still drawing assumptions and attributing them to a cause. "Pretty reasonable to assume" is nonsense in this discussion.

Have you ever heard the expression..."the solution to pollution is through dilution".

Rain, not run off as acids drop out of suspension, is such a small % of a waters overall volume, is in direct violation to what we humans know to counter act pollution. Dropping the equillivent of a drop of acid in a swimming pool is not going to kill off all life.

Also think of this. Humans and life ingest acid stuff all the time. Vinegars are great in salads, and they are acidic. Life can handle more acid than some scientist will lead you to believe. After all...it's a natural byproduct.

Respectfully, do some reading on it, as you don't know what you don't know, and that goes for everyone with most topics.
Did you read the abstract of the first article? They are estimating past pH of the lake based on which diatoms were surviving or perishing due to the recent increased acidity of the lake. Also there is large difference between us eating something acidic, vs a fish or frog living in it. Imagine if the great smog of london was permanent? Great Smog of London - Wikipedia Probably its something like that for water creatures in water that is too acidic...

My Dad quotes the "solution for pollution, is dilution" but knowing it as outdated thinking... The world is big, but we've found out its not big enough for that... Taller smoke stacks do dilute more, but in many cases, we have used up all the no consequences dilution available and now we have to just pollute less.

I'm no expert, but many small lakes do "renew" their water in days or months or a couple years.

Lake retention time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some lakes in the rock of the Adirondacks would rely mostly on rainfall and surface run off directly, so their renewal time from precipitation might be quite short.

 

[DarkBlack]

350 horses in a roller skate equals a supercar with a 6 speed close ratio manual trans. Gets rubber in the first 4 gears too, not that I do it often

Getting pretty deep. Let me get my tall boots….

 

[Snobdds]

Respectfully, do some reading on it, as you don't know what you don't know, and that goes for everyone with most topics.
Did you read the abstract of the first article? They are estimating past pH of the lake based on which diatoms were surviving or perishing due to the recent increased acidity of the lake. Also there is large difference between us eating something acidic, vs a fish or frog living in it. Imagine if the great smog of london was permanent? Great Smog of London - Wikipedia Probably its something like that for water creatures in water that is too acidic...

My Dad quotes the "solution for pollution, is dilution" but knowing it as outdated thinking... The world is big, but we've found out its not big enough for that... Taller smoke stacks do dilute more, but in many cases, we have used up all the no consequences dilution available and now we have to just pollute less.

I'm no expert, but many small lakes do "renew" their water in days or months or a couple years.

Lake retention time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some lakes in the rock of the Adirondacks would rely mostly on rainfall and surface run off directly, so their renewal time from precipitation might be quite short.

You assume (again) I don't know what I'm talking about or read up on it.

The pollution in the air was nitrogen oxides, nitrogen and oxygen. Fertilizer. It is considered a weak acid that is not harmful to life, in fact in large quantities it stimulates life.

What do you think happens in a catalytic converter? It converts it to nitrogen dioxide by attaching an extra oxygen molecule.

London fog was particulates.

I think you should spend some more time reading up and get back to me when you can make distinctions of what substances were are even talking about.

 

[paulsharvey]

I dont think we have a pollution problem in the western world at this point. Air, water, even road side trash, is Way less than it was in late 80s/early 90s. I do think they keep trying to squeeze a tiny bit more (or less really) out of a shrinking pool.

In the 60s/70s were things out of control; yes! Did some regulations need to be placed, also yes. Have we gotten to the point that we have gotten to the 80% better, and them trying to squeeze the last 15-20% going to not worth the cost; IMO also yes.

Kinda like cars. Sure, we have gone from 12mpg being pretty normal for a 160hp truck, to 19-21 mpg being the norm for a half ton, making 420 hp, yep. Moving from 12 to 18; even at a 50% increase in cost, is worth it. Now, getting another 1-2 mpg, at another 50% increase in cost, definitely not.

 

[paulsharvey]

Assuming global warming is a fraud (which I'm 100% sure it is at this point; we haven't even reached Temps of the medieval warm period); what urgent environmental problems are we facing? Fresh water in some areas, yes, but that's not generally a pollution issue. Landfills overfilling, like they told us in school, zero signs of that. Running out of oil in next 50 years, nope. Acid rain, nope. Lithium shortage, no, they've discovered vast amounts in Chile, Boliva, Afghanistan, ect.

The only issues I really know, are mostly legacy issues; old landfills leaking contaminants, old pole pole treatment yards, old gas tanks left in the ground, old lead/asbestos. Yeah, there is a nuclear bomb in the ocean somewhere off S. Car allegedly dropped in an airforce incident; but that wouldn't go up, and it is probably no more than a blip in the ocean,

 

[Topzide]

And don't get started on the gases released from a volcanic eruption! Just one, one event outputs more the we do on a year!