On BBC news this morning someone has piped up saying cutting vehicle pollution will make little or no difference to air quality, as there will still be particulates from brake dust and tyre rubber.
Reminds me of California Proposition 65 where businesses need to warn people of any chemicals that are “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity”. List is about 800 chemicals long and includes carbon monoxide, cocaine, oestrogen and ethanol.
Sounds like a pretty standard nightclub! All thats missing is testosterone
You’re in luck - it’s on the list!
That’s not what the report on the BBC website says:
'“So while legislation has driven down emissions of particles from exhausts, the non-exhaust proportion of road traffic emissions has increased.”
They say the percentage of pollutants will get proportionally higher as vehicle exhausts are cleaned up more.’
I read the BBC for facts and the Daily mail to see what the twist on it is.
This morning did not fail to disappoint.
BBC: Iranian Boats “tried to intercept British tanker”
Daily Fail: IRAN TARGETS UK TANKER
Well, duh? That’s just simple maths isn’t it?
Made me laugh that international News Outlets were hours ahead of the story than the The UK News.
Your namesake had a reputation for not quite understanding things. Good to see you’re keeping that going.
Being the key phrase.
I have 6 apples and 6 oranges. The percentage of my fruit which is oranges will increase as I give away my apples, unless I also give away an equal amount of oranges.
Only numerically challenged will think this is some kind of a “byproduct problem” of reducing emissions.
I would use neither for facts both are very bad and biased…
Unfortunately I think the unbiased and neutral media is gone now
I saw a BBC report showing an incident in France it resulted in people being stabbed in the parliamentary offices. The BBC down played it but the more worrying thing was it was shown over a week AFTER the incident, I had seen it live whilst overseas.
I really do wonder what the reason for the delay was but given it was illegal immigrants who did it you have to wonder are we too scared to report the truth for fear of someone claiming racism.
Please, explain how that isn’t just simple maths. (Extra points if you can do it without sounding like a patronising ■■■■?)
(Also, You do realise I hope that I wasn’t insulting your intelligence, just how simple a concept the BBC report is establishing)
Did you read what my original post was in response to?
Yes. If you reduce the volume of pollution from exhausts, and the pollution from things like wheels and brake discs remains largely the same as a volume, then it will obviously increase as a proportion of total vehicle pollution.
Like I said, duh.
Which bit aren’t you getting?
I believe chap, the actual phrase you want is it’s a “ratio”.
Then I did read an article a while ago saying that 75% of people didn’t understand ratios!
I don’t think I do in this context, I don’t know the relationship between the relevant volumes, therefore I cannot describe the exact ratio between them. Proportion is perfectly appropriate in this context.
Good grief, you’re hard work.
I was replying to a statement that implied reducing vehicle (exhaust) emissions wouldn’t make any difference because you still have particulates from tyres, brakes etc. This, I’m sure you’ll agree, doesn’t make sense.
Therefore, I added the quote from the BBC News website to correct this and clarify what was meant. I’m well aware what proportional means.
Yes, I did agree, because what you were pointing out was obvious to anyone who thought about the idea for more than a few seconds and actually read the news report. Unlike the person you were replying to…
Hence, duh. The inference that someone was being stupid was aimed at Teflon, not you. (Basically, around here, if you assume that the insult is aimed at Teflon, you won’t go far wrong!)