Is DEF that bad?

[RSR]

Resting tidal volume won't circulate much air "deep" into the lungs. Argue that if you want, but look where most primary lung cancers form. That was and is my point, which I see was a bit above your reading comprehension. Your poignent brain power is adding the the wrong emphAsis to the wrong syllAble.

You contradicted your self there, too, champ. I didn't say any. I said the particulate that doesn't get swept gets absorbed where it can cause issue. Please reread what I wrote, or at least read the entirety of what I wrote prior to your condemning and accusatory resposes.

I'm not backing off because you are incorrect on your premise. You're trying to twist my words then say it's incorrect while leaving out other context I've also written. Luckily it's all still on the forum for other to read.

While my specialty isn't oncology, my patients are also frequently cancer patients. None of them developed cancer from a single 2.5um particule deep in a lung. If it wasn't purely genetic, it was repeated exposure to the irritant/carcinogen.

Resting tidal volume won't circulate much air "deep" into the lungs. Argue that if you want, but look where most primary lung cancers form. That was and is my point, which I see was a bit above your reading comprehension. Your poignent brain power is adding the the wrong emphAsis to the wrong syllAble.

You contradicted your self there, too, champ. I didn't say any. I said the particulate that doesn't get swept gets absorbed where it can cause issue. Please reread what I wrote, or at least read the entirety of what I wrote prior to your condemning and accusatory resposes.

I'm not backing off because you are incorrect on your premise. You're trying to twist my words then say it's incorrect while leaving out other context I've also written. Luckily it's all still on the forum for other to read.

While my specialty isn't oncology, my patients are also frequently cancer patients. None of them developed cancer from a single 2.5um particule deep in a lung. If it wasn't purely genetic, it was repeated exposure to the irritant/carcinogen.

My 5 year old has better reading comprehension than you. Go back and read Nings post. Slowly. He says nothing of cancer. He talks about irritants and pollutants from PM2.5 that can cause all sorts of health problems. You appear to have somehow interpreted this to mean PM2.5 only causes lung cancer, which is a laughable conclusion, or position, from which to make your argument.

It's pretty telling that in your attempt to disparage my intelligence, the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

 

[5030]

the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

That seems to be the norm on this website across all posts and comments no matter what sub forum they are in.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

My 5 year old has better reading comprehension than you. Go back and read Nings post. Slowly. He says nothing of cancer. He talks about irritants and pollutants from PM2.5 that can cause all sorts of health problems. You appear to have somehow interpreted this to mean PM2.5 only causes lung cancer, which is a laughable conclusion, or position, from which to make your argument.

It's pretty telling that in your attempt to disparage my intelligence, the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

You caught me. I'm typing on my phone inbetween seeing patients. Very telling indeed...

Though, you didn't say anything of substance. Only throwing mud.


Do you actually have anything to add or just here to be a troll?

 

[RSR]

You caught me. I'm typing on my phone inbetween seeing patients. Very telling indeed...

Though, you didn't say anything of substance. Only throwing mud.


Do you actually have anything to add or just here to be a troll?

Gee, I hope you don't always make such simple mistakes when distracted. I sure wouldn't want a Doctor with that lack of focus and inability to pay attention to detail treating me for any reason. THAT is an example of trolling.

You know, kind of like saying

"There's a few other ways, but I'm not explaining them to you. Go get your own medical degrees,"

or

"... throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick like "those" people do...."

My first post wasn't trolling. It was merely to point out that your stated reasons for dismissing Ning's post about the importance of PM2.5 were incorrect.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

Gee, I hope you don't always make such simple mistakes when distracted. I sure wouldn't want a Doctor with that lack of focus and inability to pay attention to detail treating me for any reason. THAT is an example of trolling.

You know, kind of like saying

"There's a few other ways, but I'm not explaining them to you. Go get your own medical degrees,"

or

"... throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick like "those" people do...."

My first post wasn't trolling. It was merely to point out that your stated reasons for dismissing Ning's post about the importance of PM2.5 were incorrect.

I don't know that you've added anything to the discussion yet. Please do if you're able.

 

[RSR]

I don't know that you've added anything to the discussion yet. Please do if you're able.

You're right again.

Justifying my point by citing a peer-reviewed journal article that has been cited over 700 times in the literature about the effects of PM2.5 doesn't add anything to the conversation. (Did you bother to read the article, or the subsequent one that was posted by ericm979?)

Clearly conjecture and unsupported opinions add more to the conversation. How foolish of me to think otherwise.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

You're right again.

Justifying my point by citing a peer-reviewed journal article that has been cited over 700 times in the literature about the effects of PM2.5 doesn't add anything to the conversation. (Did you bother to read the article, or the subsequent one that was posted by ericm979?)

Clearly conjecture and unsupported opinions add more to the conversation. How foolish of me to think otherwise.

This is a tractor forum. I'm not looking to discuss the mechanics of COPD, cancer, or other ailments with you, particularly with your vastly superior intillect of which I stand in awe.

I asked about DEF/DPF systems because I found a tractor I liked, but had questionable EPA mandated junk on it.

Do you have anything to add, or have you exhausted Wikipedia and Google scholar?

 

[XSKIER]

I do. Both my 2017 and my 2024 have the Duramax 6.6L with 445HP and 910 pounds of torque. Because that was the only diesel option available.

The 2024 is 470/975, and kinda thirsty. I average 12.5 in my 2500 empty and towing over 6000 miles.

 

[WM75Guy]

My bad, I was looking at the 2017 and 2023 specs. The 2024 Duramax is 470/975, so more bragging rights. Fuel mileage is less than what I had hoped for, but I didn't buy it for that. Headed out in the morning to get 110 square bales of coastal to stock up for the winter.

 

[Hay Dude]

My bad, I was looking at the 2017 and 2023 specs. The 2024 Duramax is 470/975, so more bragging rights. Fuel mileage is less than what I had hoped for, but I didn't buy it for that. Headed out in the morning to get 110 square bales of coastal to stock up for the winter.

The 2024 is 470/975, and kinda thirsty. I average 12.5 in my 2500 empty and towing over 6000 miles.

Thats another thing that makes me laugh about these ridiculous, unnecessary power numbers.
A 3/4-1 ton truck can’t tow enough to come close to utilizing all that power.

A good place to start increasing fuel efficiency would be to stop the HP wars.