SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amsterdam's head of transport has announced plans to ban petrol and diesel cars in the city by 2030.
The clean air action plan aims to make the Dutch capital a "world leader in emission-free transport".
Transport chief Sharon Dijksma said residents "live a year less on average due to dirty air" and that the plan should "prolong the health of the average Amsterdammer by three months."
But the plan has already incited strong reactions in the Netherlands with one motoring organisation branding it "bizarre" and wondering how normal people would afford electric cars.
The plan, which would be applied 20 years before the Paris Agreement aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions, would require up to 23,000 electric charging points by 2025. The city currently has 3,000.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:17AM (24 children)
Makes you wonder who's pushing for laws like this.
They don't serve the general interest of the public unless the govt is planning to offer a trade-in incentive towards a new car.
Electric buses don't have the range yet for a full shift last I checked, so the city is going to need to double it's fleet size and keep half that fleet idle at all times.
Electric cars are nice and have good range for commuting. I drove one and now I'm giving serious thought to getting one when my current car bites the dust. But my use case is to work and back, to the grocery store and back, kids to school and back. I put less than 40 miles on a car daily and maybe once a month I'll go out in the boonies, 150 mile round trip. So range isn't much of an issue for me and that's important because the stated range on these cars is for perfect weather on a flat road with no stop and go traffic. Where I live, electrics regularly get half or less of their stated mileage because too hot, too cold, too hilly, too much construction, you name it.
The technology isn't ready to replace mass transit options, it's barely ready for short commutes.
Is there like a Big Battery lobby, similar to Big Tobacco that's lobbying for this and I just missed the memo somehow?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:23AM
To be fair, Amsterdam? You do NOT need a car, and it takes longer to get around that city with one, than without.
Even FedEx delivers packages with a bike. No, I'm not kidding.
http://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/news/fedex_trike_10.jpg [eltis.org]
When I was there, I even saw a FedEx guy just on a human powered bike, with a trailer (like you'd put a kid in), but instead for packages.
Inner city, for sure -- but, Amsterdam is almost all inner city.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 07 2019, @12:55PM (17 children)
> They don't serve the general interest
Unless you are interested in not dying of lung cancer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:00PM (13 children)
Except it doesn't cause cancer. Emphysema sure, but if car related pollution were cancer causing you'd see higher than normal rates of lung cancer in cities such as LA.
Real true fact here, your body is absolutely amazing at filtering out trash. Futhermore chemicals don't cause cancer. Cancer causes cancer and chemicals are only involved because they can sometimes activate the faulty DNA you already carried and your immune system subsequently fails to keep it in check.
People think cancer is some kind of external disease. It isn't. It is literally your body attempting to be immortal.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3610726/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:03PM
Replying to self because I was missing a citation on the rates of cancer
https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html [cdc.gov]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:30PM (6 children)
Thanks for the correction.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:42PM (5 children)
No worries. In truth I was being pedantic. General health is poorer in cities with higher levels of air pollution and that is well supported. What isn't supported is that pollution causes lung cancer. If you look at that map, you'll see that cancer deaths are per capita, way higher in the less air polluted states, and it is absolutely lowest in Utah where the inversion traps so much smog in the valleys in the winter that we are literally told not to go outside for weeks at a time.
So if you had said "Perhaps it is in the general interest that they don't die of lung infections, emphysema or what not", I would have totally supported it.
As the child of a family of down winders I've gotten a bit sensitive on the subject of cancer and it's causes because there is so much misinformation out there.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:08PM (4 children)
Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes. - Cancer in Humans [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:42PM (2 children)
Look, this last link is much better I'll grant you that. But you're still relying on the conclusions of a study rather than the data it's sourcing.
If you look at the data, the link with cancer is tenuous at best.
I'm not saying that pollution is healthy. It's pretty easy to step outside in heavy smog or during inversion season, take a deep breath and instantly realize it was a mistake. You will get sick from it. But it isn't going to cause cancer.
PM2.5 is particulate matter at 2.5 microns and smaller. These are generally speaking, abrasive to soft tissues such as those in the lung. It is long term exposure to this abrasive, constantly killing off healthy lung cells that gives the cancerous ones a better chance to grow. It isn't causative, it is correlative. You had lung cells and some of those lung cells were cancerous, i.e. immortal or at least much harder to kill. Being the survivors of constant abrasion they then go on to dominate the scene by virtue of the fact they are harder to kill.
The PM2.5 topic does bring up something I hadn't considered previously though. California has much tougher emissions requirements even though cities like LA have much worse air quality overall. Therefore it is likely the reason you see lower lung cancer rates in California vs the east coast is directly related to those tougher emissions requirements. Not sure how this holds though considering Utah has relaxed standards vs Cali, yet in Utah the lung cancer rate is much, much lower than Cali. Yet the per capita rate of smoking in Utah is lower than anywhere else in the country and therefore both the first hand and second hand smoke rate is lower. So I would guess that makes up the difference but that is only a guess and I say that as person who is well over 40 with a 30 year long, pack a day habit. Ergo my conclusion...
Car exhaust is a terrible health problem, but is not what causes lung cancer. Cancer causes cancer meaning when your cells decided to suddenly become immortal, other things may have helped it along but they didn't cause it. Unless of course they are mutagenics like say nicotine. But that's a whole other discussion.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:59PM (1 child)
Function of PM2.5 in the pathogenesis of lung cancer and chronic airway inflammatory diseases [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @08:36PM
I give up, you win...
Car exhaust causes cancer... In mice :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:21AM
"Cell Cycle is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering a range of cell biology related contents. It was founded in 2002..."
Just pointing out that reputation and longevity are hard to earn in science. The Wiki page is full of hard sell... smells a bit whiffy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:03PM (4 children)
Sulfur Dioxide absolutely DOES cause cancer. [lung.org]
WHO: 'Diesel exhaust fumes cancerous' [www.nhs.uk]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:13PM (3 children)
First link is to the American Lung Association and describes ill health effects of sulfur dioxide poisoning both acute and chronic, but doesn't list cancer as one of them.
Second link is to a summary from the national health service in the UK, but it is quoting an article from the Daily Mail which says the WHO says that the WHO has decided to reclassify Diesel Fumes from potentially carcinogenic to simply carcinogenic.
Quoting the link you supplied...
So... um yeah, I don't recommend firing up your diesel engine and huffing the tail pipe. I also wouldn't sit in an enclosed room with a running diesel engine. But if you have lung cancer it's unlikely it's due to that semi dropping off a trailer at your local Walmart.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:35PM (2 children)
Fair point on the first link, I probably should have checked it more thoroughly.
The second link stands, though, diesel fumes cause cancer according to the World Health Organization.
It's actually the PM2.5 (very fine particulate matter) that causes the cancer, not the sulfur dioxide.
Although, the SO2 does react with the atmosphere to create PM so it's not helping. [epa.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:44PM (1 child)
Do you realize how ironic this conversation is considering your handle?
According to the same link, the WHO also claims sawdust and sunshine cause cancer.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:54PM
You've never heard of skin cancer?
And, wood dust IS a carcinogen. [cancer.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @05:41PM (2 children)
Pollution from "modern" diesels is extremely low. Pollution from Electric cars may not be lower - because most of the problem these days is particulates from the brakes and tyres, and electric cars tend to be double the weight of conventional cars - so far more stress on brakes and tyres. The push for electric cars cars is mostly ill-informed political correctness - not that I rule out fake news and corruption. A recently published report (in the Brussels Times) says the energy required to manufacture the batteries for electric cars exceeds the lifetime consumption of most diesel cars. (Google is your friend).
Consider the following important fact-lets:
Not all cars are the latest technology. Old cars are "very bad". Old petrol cars pollute with unburned hydrocarbons - which are known carcinogens - but petrol is "All American".
Very new diesels ("Euro-6") have "Ad-Blu" technology - to cut down on Nitrous Oxides (the same ones used to improve sexual performance), they pump Urea (pig's piss) into the exhaust pipe. Ignoring the fact that pig's piss is neither Halal nor Kosher, there is no evidence that it is not responsible for the massive rise in Asthma and hay fever we have been experiencing since Euro 6 was invented. Nor is there any evidence that the manufacturers of Ad-Blu have been bribing officials to pass laws requiring the technology.
In fact there is absolutely no evidence of any kind what ever regarding the merits or otherwise of Ad-Blu technology on the road. Sure it works fine in the lab - but so did the Volkswagens.
This message brought to you by the Illiteratti.
Disclaimer: I don't own an electric car factory.
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:51PM
Yeah, but are you considering the effects of regenerative braking in that math?
If you've ever driven an electric car or a hybrid you'll notice that despite the extra curb weight you hardly ever need the brakes and this is due to regenerative braking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:24AM
Is this a retarted persontaling? Pig's piss? You expect real responses when your premise is pig's piss? Fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @03:00PM (3 children)
Someone who is nowhere and suddenly is everywhere is a classic example of the JIDF agent. It is easy to spot them but you've got to have a sharp eye.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) [whale.to]
Some things never change.
.
.
P.S: What do you do for a living? Sit all day at a computer and add troll messages on all topics?
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:56PM (2 children)
Ahh hello there!
I was wondering where you went.
I was hoping you could counter VLM's anti-muslim bias and entertain us all some more.
But, yes, you're absolutely right I'm an agent of the JIDF.
The Sanhedron sent me here to Utah to convert everyone to Judaism, with my stunning charisma, my gap teeth and my hairy obese body.
But in the process I fake converted to Mormonism and got disillusioned, then ended up disfellowshipped and now no one wants to hear me out.
Since that time I have been stalking you. Reporting back home to the mothership about your incredible insight into us.
We're all very interested in how you learned of our master plan.
Either that, or I'm bored at work and I find being a face for your impotent vitrol and foaming at the mouth entertaining.
Not really sure which, I'll let you decide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @08:54PM (1 child)
Bored at work, or getting paid for work not done?
You khazar jews print money, others have to earn it. Go back to your JIDF handler/boss and tell him not to send you here again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:27AM
Meh, my handler is too busy to care what you think. Anyways we here at the JIDF get more excitement from watching you. Obviously you have time to be here literally contributing nothing of value to society and wasting the perfectly good air in your moms basement. What exactly are you doing for her that she pays you so much? We would all like to know.
Ok so on a serious note, I am here because we heard you are actually having problems with shall we say handling manhood.
Where exactly did the bad man touch you?
Would you like a doll so all you have to do is point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:30PM
You've obviously never been to Amsterdam - the bus usage is minimal, the vast majority are trams: which are electric!