"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MROSj.7083$ko5.2963@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Klompmeester wrote:
>> "Bernd Felsche" <bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:r95re5x6n7.ln2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Toby Ponsenby <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> Kias solution to ADR 30 on their little Ceres trucks is an EXTREMELY
>>>>> restricted exhaust system.
>>>>> About 50 mm at the exhaust manifold down to 25 at the tail.
>>>> Ugh. How small was that engine again?
>>>>> All carbon ends up in the sump:-)
>>>> Where it belongs. :-)
>>>>> But it's easily fixed and believe it or not the engine doesn't blast
>>>>> noticeably more soot out the pipe anyway.
>>>> It's the nano-particles that you can't see that are doing the
damage...
>>> Allegedly. It's a hypothesis. No more than AGW and us making a
>>> hole in the ozone layer.
>>>
>>> Data dredges have found a (weak) correlation between exposure to
>>> high levels of diesel particulates and cancers. Uncontrolled
>>> "studies" and re-analyses with a middle risk ratio barely above
>>> unity.
>>>
>>> But the same population is typically dominated by those who can't
>>> afford proper health care, nice food, etc. Poverty gives you cancer.
>>>
>>> Of course, those parents who provide a sterile bubble for their
>>> offsprung, will see their children suffer and probably die from the
>>> normal stuff that nature puts their way once outside the bubble. The
>>> immune system has to be innoculated by as much of the prospective
>>> environment as possible, early in life.
>>
>> Allegedly. It's a hypothesis.
>
> It is a variable. Does not worry me in the slightest, I know
> a 73 year old who smokes ciggies dawn to dusk most of his
> life and is doing fine.
Plenty of smokers never see 73. It's a definite health risk, as are diesel
fumes.
|
