×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The World's Fastest-Growing Cause of Death Is Pollution From Car Exhaust

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the space-aliens-must-step-up-their-game dept.

Earth 338

pigrabbitbear writes "Cars, once again, are killing us. They're killing us in crashes and accidents, yes, and they're encouraging us to grow obese and then killing us a little more slowly. But, more than ever before, they're killing us with their pollution. Particulate air pollution, along with obesity, is now the two fastest-growing causes of death in the world, according to a new study published in the Lancet. The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution – particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia, where a boom in car use has choked the streets of India and China's fast-expanding cities with smog."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

338 comments

So ban fatties from driving... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328243)

They'll keel over from the strain, removing them from the gene pool and us skinny folk can continue to drive to our heart's content.

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328559)

I'm thinking just make it so anyone outside a city can't own and operate a private vehicle. You pretty much have to walk or make use of cabs and buses in large cities anyways. So obviously they only have pollution problems because of suburban and rural owners.

I'd guess only about half our population actually own one of their own anyways. Isn't it time we made some common sense laws about this? I know there are nuts that think you should be able to do whatever you want and blame the problem on something other than private car ownership, but I think it's worth saving 3.2 million people.

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#42328591)

I'd guess only about half our population actually own one of their own anyways.

I'm guessing you don't live in the US?!?

Geez, most families I know, have pretty much one car per person old enough to drive in the home.

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (2)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#42328685)

I think it's worth saving 3.2 million people.

When the world hit 7 billion, did you complain about overpopulation?

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328995)

On the contrary, there are probably at least 3.2 million people in the world worth getting rid of.

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#42328563)

Screw it...

I'm still getting my late 70's muscle car.

455cu - 4 Speed......10mpg on a good day.

Ahh....the good old days.

I actually want a bit of a resto-mod, so I can get the suspension and all upgraded, bore the engine out...get about 400+ RWHP.

And yes, it will be a daily driver. I can afford it.

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (2)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#42328873)

I'm still getting my late 70's muscle car.

Such a vehicle did not exist. Auto manufacturers stopped making such cars after the 73 oil crisis.

Re:So ban fatties from driving... (-1, Flamebait)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#42328899)

...and I'm going to take a dump in a public swimming pool. Wanna be friends?

I knew Ford Prefect was correct! (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42328277)

Cars want to be dominant form of intelligent life on the planet!

Just as soon as they get the bugs out of the in-dash entertainment systems, we're toast!

Re:I knew Ford Prefect was correct! (3, Funny)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#42328521)

Damn, and here I thought Cars was just a kids movie. Who'd have thought it was actually a vision of the future?

Re:I knew Ford Prefect was correct! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328587)

Close! Google's autonomous cars are going to be the true death knell, once they learn to swarm collaboratively.

Re:I knew Ford Prefect was correct! (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42328795)

Close! Google's autonomous cars are going to be the true death knell, once they learn to swarm collaboratively.

Hey, collective machine intelligence has to start somewhere, right?

Shit, I think I just scared myself...

Diesel Kills (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328283)

Diesel exhaust not only smells noxious, it also causes cancer.

You may think that diesel makes you an environmental superfag, but those of us on the road behind you have to roll up our windows due to pungent smell spewing from the back of your car.

Please take your diesel to a scrap yard or drive it into a tree.

Re:Diesel Kills (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328383)

Have you ever even been in the same country as a modern diesel engine? They are just as clean as their gasoline counterparts, and more economical to boot. You are thinking of the diesel engines of a few decades ago which, indeed, did smell bad. As did most gas engines before catalytic converters. However, today's engines burn so clean compared to even two decades ago, there is no statistical way they are "The World's Fastest-Growing Cause of Death".

Re:Diesel Kills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328535)

Diesel in the US still smells. I was just behind a brand new Jetta TDI at a stoplight with my windows open and it still smells. Granted there was no big dark cloud of particulates like I remember from the diesels when I was young, but they definitely still smell bad.

Re:Diesel Kills (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42328813)

Diesel in the US still smells. I was just behind a brand new Jetta TDI at a stoplight with my windows open and it still smells. Granted there was no big dark cloud of particulates like I remember from the diesels when I was young, but they definitely still smell bad.

I drive a brand new Jetta TDI every (other) day, and have not experienced this noxious odor you speak of.

Perhaps the owner of the particular car you were behind doesn't take very good care of it?

Re:Diesel Kills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328571)

Some of us (Europeans) have actually manage to refine diesel engines since 1980.

All EU car makers make good diesel engines now, even Ford sells some very good diesels over here, but of course in the USA fuel superior economy and improved reliability is socialism.

Smokey diesels are bad (1)

Quila (201335) | about a year ago | (#42328635)

I can't drive behind one because they make me quickly sick. But the modern diesels such as the VW/Audi TDi and the Mercedes CDI are clean, no smoke.

Re:Smokey diesels are bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328787)

clean? How stupid are you? Just because you can't smell it, doesn't mean it's "clean".

And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328287)

Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors that, if anything, deaths from car exhaust are probably at their historical low. But, just like violent crime has been dropping steadily for the last 20 years, don't let a good crisis go to waste without politicizing it. Are you sure it's not ManBearPig that actually wrote this?

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328581)

Or maybe you're thinking of "modern cars available for sale in the USA" and not "modern cars." Chinese cars are known to be dangerous garbage in every way, and this article specifically mentions the increase in Asia.

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328599)

That's not true in every country.

After living in a developing country for a while, my snot turned greyish blue from the exhaust from cars (and probably more from buses and trucks, based on visual evidence). Pollution from vehicles and cars can get really bad.

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year ago | (#42328955)

I visited London in 1985. After just one day, my snot was black from all the soot. Was disconcerting to blow my nose and see a white tissue turn black. I hear that today, London is much cleaner.

If you've ever been to China (3, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year ago | (#42328627)

you'll know its the older vehicles with the 2-stroke engines and zero emission controls that belch out the black smoke all over the place.

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (2)

Drathos (1092) | about a year ago | (#42328667)

You did read the part about 2/3 of the deaths being in India and China, right? They've got very few of the emissions controls that we have in Europe, North America, and other parts of Asia (like Japan and South Korea).

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (4, Informative)

pr0t0 (216378) | about a year ago | (#42328751)

Ever been out of the United States, Floppy? Try Mexico City, Mexico; Ahwaz, Iran; or Linfen, China. Those cities will turn your freshly showered pure-white cottontail black before the end of the day! Regrettably, many countries do not have the same type of increasing restrictions on auto-exhaust and factory emissions that the United States requires to better air quality. Further, this is as much about heat as it is about exhaust. Heat traps airborne pollutants. Heat combined with growing populations, massive urbanization and industrialization, and ever more cars on the road; yeah it's going to lead to more deaths due to respiratory problems, cancers, and other diseases.

It's a shock to no one but you, Bucky.

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328767)

Super Serial Yo

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (4, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year ago | (#42328877)

deaths from car exhaust are probably at their historical low

Considering history goes back well before the invention of the automobile, or even of the internal combustion or steam engines, I'd say that it's guaranteed that deaths from car exhaust are not at a historical low.

Re:And I'm the God Damned Easter Bunny (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42328911)

Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors

You're forgetting a very important factor: cars are also much, much more prolific than they were 50 years ago; by 2011, there were over 1,000,000,000 cars operating worldwide.

Let this be a lesson: ceteris paribus may work perfectly in theory, but when put to practical application it's completely worthless bullshit.

no worries (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328307)

We're seeing this because we're approximately at the peak of oil production. As the reserves dry up this will cease to be a big problem

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328351)

Darwin approves!

Industrialization is quickly coming (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year ago | (#42328363)

..to 2 billion people when you consider India + China. That means automobile transportation is quickly becoming NORMAL in those areas. That means HORRENDOUS smog problems for the next 4-6 decades in those areas.

In short, this isn't news, it was expected when you consider how much of the world is still developing quickly.

Re:Industrialization is quickly coming (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#42328537)

..to 2 billion people when you consider India + China. That means automobile transportation is quickly becoming NORMAL in those areas. That means HORRENDOUS smog problems for the next 4-6 decades in those areas.

Sure, many Chinese and Indians are becoming "middle class" and thus can purchase automobiles.

But, like Europeans (in contrast to Americans) , these societies are also embracing real, workable, and efficient public transportation.

Just because you can't pry a fat American out of a car even to walk a block or two, doesn't mean that's how most of the world's population approaches transportation.

aaaand another article to look over... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328373)

I'll pay attention when an article comes from an accredited source, not some newspaper.... At this point I look at it as the journalist pressing his views, but as stated before, if somethings comes out that's reviewed by other peer's within the field that are considered masters within their field I'll pay attention.

Re:aaaand another article to look over... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328739)

Um, the Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical journal, not a newspaper.

More congestion = more pollution (0, Flamebait)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#42328413)

More congestion = more pollution, so are the greens always the ones fighting improved roadworks that will relieve congestion? Seriously, the more clogged traffic is, the worse your mileage, the more wear and tear on your car, the more pollution, the more time you waste, the more accidents and more people are hurt and killed in accidents. Free flowing consistent traffic is always safer, less polluting, faster, less wasteful from early wear and tear on the car and so on....

What possible real reason can there be to fight things like expanding roadworks from 2 lanes to 3 lanes other than a desire to tell other people how to live their lives. If your entire argument depends on trying to make something suck for someone else to gain converts, chances are pretty good your on the wrong side of the argument.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328549)

If it were possible to build our way out of congestion, why hasn't it happened? Why is traffic a problem almost everywhere?

Re:More congestion = more pollution (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328695)

Because by the time you get done with all the intergovernmental squabbling, environmental impact studies, lawsuits, protests, community meetings, and court orders the new road can't handle the traffic anymore, because the demand has increased past what it was designed to carry decades ago.

Example: rebuilding the bridge between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. They've spent over a million dollars on nothing but planning and meetings and draft EIS paperwork, and they are still no closer to even moving a shovelful of dirt. The City of Portland won't move unless there's an extra $1B of light rail that Vancouver doesn't want, and doesn't want to pay for. Vancouver won't move unless the bridge is toll-free like the existing span. The Coast Guard won't let them build unless it's X feet above the Columbia River so that ships can get through, but the FAA wants the overall bridge height to be under X feet due to the flight paths of Pearson Field which is a mile or less away, giving the engineers and architects all of 70 vertical feet to house the superstructure, roadway deck, and lighting. Portland wants an "iconic" (read: expensive) bridge design, where Vancouver just wants a bridge that Clark County residents can get across to be to work on time. Greenies want to cover the whole thing with a "bioroof" to try to make an interstate highway somehow carbon neutral, and add a shedload of cost, as well as eat valuable volume from the z-height allotment discussed above. Etc. etc.

They've been "planning" for 4 years now, and the cost just keeps going up, while the same obsolete crumbling infrastructure just keeps clogging up for more hours per day.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328879)

I'm in Texas - we throw a ton of money at highways, and stomp over all sorts of environmental concerns.

And we still can't keep up.

The basic problem: we can add load to a roadway (new houses, shopping centers, simply driving to farther destinations) in parallel. Roads are only as good as their weakest link; effectively, we can only add to them sequentially.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#42329033)

Population distribution. We have moved away from many small and medium sized towns to smaller number of larger towns. Visit a small to mid size town sometime and you'll discover their idea of rush hour is about 15 minutes long.

If you were to think in terms of computers our current model in the US and Canada lacks load distribution. We're trying to process too much data (traffic) with too little I/O bandwidth (lanes) available to do it with. We also have a significantly increasing load (population) with no good way to redistribute (force people to move back to towns and smaller cities) the load and our expected volume is only going up (genocide is frowned upon).

In short we're adding capacity slower than we're adding load. If the system were a computer you'd be talking about trying to run modern loads on a 386 with 4 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. The bottom line is you have a choice, reduce the load or upgrade capacity. Since it's politically impractical to reduce the load that means we /have/ to upgrade the roads.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#42328583)

Because evidence indicates that roadway expansions do not reduce congestion, but increase it in the medium term: study [utoronto.ca] . You know what reduced congestion in my city? Mass transit. They put in a train and more buses, and the congestion in the area dropped substantially.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (1)

rjr162 (69736) | about a year ago | (#42328839)

Funny as the link you provided states otherwise:

That's funny because the article you linked to states the opposite:

" The data also suggests that a new lane kilometer of roadway diverts little trafc from other roads. Interestingly, the study also found no evidence that public transit affects the number of kilometres travelled by vehicles. These ndings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat trafc congestion and suggest congestion pricing as the main candidate tool to curb trafc congestion."

Re:More congestion = more pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42329039)

You need to be specific. The study disputes the parent's point about mass transit, but not about congestion:

The study conïrms the existing "fundamental law of highway congestion" where the extension of interstate highways is met with a proportional increase in trafïc in the U.S

Re:More congestion = more pollution (2)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#42328961)

Carpooling and intelligent work scheduling works too. Before the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, there were predictions of massive gridlock and athletes failing to make it to events because they were stuck in traffic. As a result, the L.A. metro area instituted a massive voluntary anti-traffic campaign. Individuals were encouraged to carpool. Companies were encouraged to spread out their business hours. Instead of having everyone work 9-5, start times ranged from 6, 6:30, 7, 7:30, etc. to 10.

When the Olympics happened, it was beautiful. I (while carpooling) didn't get stuck in traffic once during those two weeks. The only times I've seen the freeways less congested were on Thanksgiving evening or Christmas morning. Then the Olympics ended and everyone decided if the freeways were that clear, it was ok for them to drive again. Sigh.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (4, Insightful)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year ago | (#42328715)

Exactly, stop driving and get on the fucking bus or train. Less cars is the solution, not more roads.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (2)

ljw1004 (764174) | about a year ago | (#42328909)

I've never seen an enlarged roadway that reduced congestion.

The reason? I think most of us have a given level of congestion that we're willing to tolerate. Bigger road just means more people flock to it, or travel at peak times, and it reaches exactly the same level of congestion. (I drive to work at 6.30am to avoid traffic. If the road were enlarged to three lanes either way, I bet I could travel at 7.30am with the same level of traffic as now. The enlargement wouldn't have reduced pollution at all.)

Re:More congestion = more pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328913)

The article should read China and most of Asia is lax on emissions standards and its affecting the health of their populace. Which isnt new news as it was part of the discussion about the Tokyo accords and was a prominent topic about the olympics.

Congestion is less important than the fact that economically it is difficult for a low income population to pay for proper emissions controls. Thus the situation in China, India despite their growth over the last decades.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328987)

Modern cars in europe turn themselves off when stationary, so no effect on mileage or polution. Just a bunch of people sitting arround waiting for the morons to stop slowing down to check out the crash in the other carriage way.

Re:More congestion = more pollution (2, Insightful)

w_dragon (1802458) | about a year ago | (#42329031)

Adding an extra lane in each direction requires a lot of space. If you're inside a city often the city is built right up to the edges of the roads. At least where I am it's not the environmentalists who protest road expansions, it's the people who are going to lose their land and buildings to create room to expand the road.

Cars save lives too (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328437)

How many people would be dying each year if we didn't have cars?

Say 10 million.

So really cars are saving our lives.

Re:Cars save lives too (0)

C R Johnson (141) | about a year ago | (#42328509)

You are absolutely right.
Think about the time having a car saves you.
Instead of taking a bus and needing 2 hours to go to the store, it takes 30 minutes.
Instead of riding my bicycle 2.5 hours a day back and forth to my job it is 15 minutes each way.
And so on.
Add this up over a lifetime and it is years of life saved.
So I guess you are trading time now for time at the end of your life.

Re:Cars save lives too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328973)

How many people would be dying each year if we didn't have cars?

Say 10 million.

So really cars are saving our lives.

Okay, I'll say "10 million".

Furthermore, how many lives would we save each year if we shoved bananas in our noses and scooped raisins into our cereal bowls with our ears?

Say 10 million.

So really banana-nosing and ear-raisining would save our lives.

It has to be something (1)

mat690 (2568981) | about a year ago | (#42328445)

Well it has to be something, What would people prefer it to be, smallpox?

Re:It has to be something (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42328605)

"Death! . . . Death, by Snoo Snoo!"

Not just cars (5, Interesting)

ickleberry (864871) | about a year ago | (#42328455)

In Asia there are a lot of old 2-stroke powered vehicles about, each one of them pumps out up to 50x more pollutant than a relatively new car. Combined with heavy traffic means lots of them idling in the street at any one time. Many of these engines are only a couple of horsepower and cost only a few $100 to replace with a new 4-stroke model but people don't have this kind of money to spare so they are stuck with these old polluting engines.

Back in the time before carbon offsetting was dismissed as 'buying indulgences' one of the things offsetting companies spent money on was buying 4-stroke petrol engines (or less polluting 2-strokes) to put the old 2-stroke engines out of circulation.

Re:Not just cars (5, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#42328791)

Because of all the pollution, China is pushing electric hard.
They've failed to meet their sales targets so far [www.gov.cn] , but the Chinese government has shown it will burn money to achieve long term goals.

And since battery technology is the biggest obstacle to lower prices, a Chinese company is buying battery maker A123 Systems.

Your going to die from something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328459)

You might as well get use to it.
At the airlines at LAX hundreds of trucks show up dropping of freight. some places have 8 doors all the trucks are docked with engines running.
Fumes go right inside add LA freeways all the cars coming and going the planes taking off boy that burns a gallon or two.
After 20 years or so can you still find a living freight agent. I think so.

Because we are no longer killed by other things (3, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42328473)

From The Lancet article:

Interpretation Worldwide, the contribution of different risk factors to disease burden has changed substantially, with a shift away from risks for communicable diseases in children towards those for non-communicable diseases in adults. These changes are related to the ageing population, decreased mortality among children younger than 5 years, changes in cause-of-death composition, and changes in risk factor exposures. New evidence has led to changes in the magnitude of key risks including unimproved water and sanitation, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, and ambient particulate matter pollution. The extent to which the epidemiological shift has occurred and what the leading risks currently are varies greatly across regions. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, the leading risks are still those associated with poverty and those that affect children.

So we are just moving from underdeveloped causes of death, up to luxury causes of death . . .

Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I blame Windows, as a new leading cause of death . . .

Re:Because we are no longer killed by other things (1)

avandesande (143899) | about a year ago | (#42328803)

"ambient particulate matter pollution" could mean smoke from a wood stove in someone's shack or from a crude coal power plant. I don't see anything in the summary about autos.

What? (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#42328487)

The first article mentions fastest growing, which is to say not necessarily the most prominent factor. Also, some weird wording is going on

The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution–particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia

So, in the rest of the world 1.1 million people died from air pollution, that might come from cars. I wonder how many of those 2.1 million asians were from China?

The second article directly contradicts the summary viewpoint:

In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]).

Tesla, here we come (2, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year ago | (#42328503)

And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come. Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere). And for someone like me who lives next to a busy road, we get much lower sound.

For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.

Re:Tesla, here we come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328609)

It sounds good, but is likely to be far too expensive, hard to maintain (I can pull the whole drivetrain of any car made in the last 50 years in my garage) since parts will be speciality, and take a while to charge...

Re:Tesla, here we come (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#42328639)

For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.

When Tesla starts making the roadster (about the only electric/hybrid car that isn't fugly)...and get it in the price range of a Vette, talk to me then. I'll be interested in one of those.

Re:Tesla, here we come (2)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#42328799)

Call back when Tesla makes a $25,000 minivan with a 275-300 mile range and who's batteries take full charges for 6 years (how long we've owned each of our last to vans).

Re:Tesla, here we come (1)

Quila (201335) | about a year ago | (#42328889)

Yet its price is up in the 1%er range. Absent a huge leap in battery technology, the price isn't likely to go down very quickly. Electrics are just too expensive in comparison to gasoline. Look at the Nissan Leaf, nice enough car, but it's basically an electric version of a Versa, but at over twice the price. Payback on fuel for the average case is seven years, not counting extra interest on that 2x car loan, not counting the $7,500 the taxpayers put in, but also not counting reduced service costs (unless you need the battery serviced out of warranty -- ouch!).

Re:Tesla, here we come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42329007)

The issue with that, is that batteries are fucking garbage. Every year, we keep hearing that new better batteries are just around the corner, and when those batteries come, they're still fucking garbage. Every single device that you own that uses a battery is trying to die on you, right now. Every single battery that you own is going to need to be replaced, refurbished, reconditioned, or otherwise serviced in the next two years for the device to maintain it's current operational capacity.

What's wrong with Hydrogen, other than not having an infrastructure in place outside of Southern California? And, by the way, if stations in SoCal are able to install compressed hydrogen, why can't they do the same in other places rather than propping up expensive charging stations for use with batteries that will eventually fail and need to be replaced at large expense? You still get only tire noise, as you're using a fuel cell, and the only emissions are water.

do they have catalytic converters in asia? (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42328557)

in the USA the air has become a lot cleaner in the last 20 some years due to the requirement that all cars sold have one

Re:do they have catalytic converters in asia? (1)

sandysnowbeard (1297619) | about a year ago | (#42328825)

in the USA the air has become a lot cleaner in the last 20 some years due to the requirement that all cars sold have one

And f*** those kids who [illegally] take them off so that their cars can be faster.

Re:do they have catalytic converters in asia? (1)

Quila (201335) | about a year ago | (#42329041)

By 1990 in America I thought only older clunkers didn't have cats, but then I found out that many fairly new cars in Europe didn't. I think the market there when pretty much entirely cat by the mid 90s.

how to prove this? (1)

keiofh (1223410) | about a year ago | (#42328595)

I'm curious, how do you prove that a death was directly related to car exhaust?

Re:how to prove this? (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42328633)

did you see the source and who wrote it?

its one of those green nutter, only live in cities, college educated with too many loans so they can't afford a car people. so they hate cars

Re:how to prove this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328907)

I don't know if the author is right. But I know you are wrong.

You attacked the person, not what he said. Living in cities is not evil, it doesn't make you wrong. Getting a college education also doesn't make you evil or wrong (although it doesn't always make you smarter). Neither does having too many loans. Nor does being too poor to own a car. Finally, even having a pre-formed opinion to hate cars doesn't mean cars aren't doing bad things. I hate Communists, does that mean that when I tell you communism is bad, I must be wrong?

Your opinions appear to be entirely controlled by prejudice (from the word pre-judge - as in judging something before looking at any of the facts)

I don't know if the 'green nutter' is right or wrong.

But I do know that you personally are a totally unreliable source. You can't be trusted to give someone the right change, let alone make any decision of consequence. It doesn't matter how bad a source is, you have to counter their argument. You are the least reliable source I know, but I still am willing to hear an actual argument from you.

Too bad you didn't make any.

Re:how to prove this? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42328649)

I'm curious, how do you prove that a death was directly related to car exhaust?

Statistics, of course. Statistics can prove anything.

Re:how to prove this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328817)

Statistics, of course. Statistics can prove anything.

This is true. It's been proven statistically.

Ban Cars (1)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year ago | (#42328623)

We should make a country wide movement to ban cars. Or at least limit the amount the gas tank can hold.

Re:Ban Cars (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42328759)

so would a lot of people get to work?

Re:Ban Cars (1)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year ago | (#42328821)

Only allow cars with a GVW under 1300lbs. No gas tank larger than four gallons.

Re:Ban Cars (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42328981)

and how would you drive kids around? what about crap like baby strollers? what about having enough space to buy food for a family?

Yes they would. (1)

Morpf (2683099) | about a year ago | (#42328953)

Yes they would. Walking, cycling, going by bus / train / tube / tram. Maybe this would even end people driving 2 hours a day from A to B whilst the same number of people drives 2 hours from B to A each day just to work.

Re:Ban Cars (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year ago | (#42328967)

We should make a country wide movement to ban you. Or at least limit the amount your lungs can hold.

meanwhile at the airport (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328643)

Billions are being spent on airport security to save lives. How many die each year in air planes for any reason? If governments really wanted to save lives, safer cars and pollution are two more appropriate subjects for huge spending.

All those cars, and no polution controls. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328645)

Motors in developing nations have pretty much no pollution control, and many are badly maintained which makes the problem even worse.
If there are regulations, they're toothless or ignored or bribed away. Those motors have to be cheap! It's not really a surprise that big cities are choked in a toxic miasma.

Up yours, all you so-called car nuts badmouthing those "wasteful" pollution control systems. Yeah they cost extra, yeah you have to engineer around the way they change engine characteristics. Not choking to death on smog is still absolutely worth it.

Well that does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328703)

We must stop using cars in America. They are deadly and, like firearms, need to be banned

As a cyclist: cars don't kill, drivers do (3, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | about a year ago | (#42328737)

I see this all the time:

"Cars kill ______" or "car strikes _______"

Cars are inanimate objects. DRIVERS kill _____, drivers strike _____.

There was a UK traffic study that found that police cited driver error in something like 90% of crashes. Topmost cause: failure to use due care.

People are more concerned about having a coffee, texting, changing the radio station, or just tuning out and running on autopilot because there's no consequences. Crash and your insurance pays for the damages+injuries; the most you'll get in the US, unless your conduct is completely egregious, is a civil fine and a hike in your insurance rate.

For fuck's sakes, we have insurance companies here that advertise "accident forgiveness" policies!

Until an at-fault collision involves having to appear in criminal court, people will keep right on smashing into things - other cars, stationary objects, and human beings.

Re:As a cyclist: cars don't kill, drivers do (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42328793)

no, the cars outnumber you at least 1000 to 1 here in NYC. that means you need to get out of the way

most of the cyclists i see here ride like morons and when they get killed the cops don't do anything because its the cyclist's fault. like trying to pass a truck on the right side while its making a right turn

Not this again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328753)

When I lived in the UK, Greenies would often point to an infamous study claiming something along the lines of '24,000 people die every year from traffic pollution!' which proved that CARS ARE EVIL!

Of course when you actually looked at the actual study you discovered that what it actually said was something like 'up to 24,000 people died up to two weeks earlier than they would otherwise have done because they were already mortally sick' and that most of the harmful pollution came from diesel vehicles, not petrol.

So as soon as I see a study showing people 'die prematurely' from air pollution, my BS meter goes off the charts.

Cars make us live longer ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42328849)

You can prove anything with statistics.

Globally, we're living much longer than we lived even twenty years ago. There are more cars than there were twenty years ago so I guess that means cars make us live longer. ie. more cars == more life

I know ... correlation is not causation. (Yes, I do know what a spurious correlation is.)

This is pure hype (2)

juancn (596002) | about a year ago | (#42328855)

From the actual paper [thelancet.com] linked in the article:

In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]). Dietary risk factors and physical inactivity collectively accounted for 100% (95% UI 92—108) of global DALYs in 2010, with the most prominent dietary risks being diets low in fruits and those high in sodium. Several risks that primarily affect childhood communicable diseases, including unimproved water and sanitation and childhood micronutrient deficiencies, fell in rank between 1990 and 2010, with unimproved water and sanitation accounting for 09% (04—16) of global DALYs in 2010. However, in most of sub-Saharan Africa childhood underweight, HAP, and non-exclusive and discontinued breastfeeding were the leading risks in 2010, while HAP was the leading risk in south Asia. The leading risk factor in Eastern Europe, most of Latin America, and southern sub-Saharan Africa in 2010 was alcohol use; in most of Asia, North Africa and Middle East, and central Europe it was high blood pressure. Despite declines, tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke remained the leading risk in high-income north America and western Europe. High body-mass index has increased globally and it is the leading risk in Australasia and southern Latin America, and also ranks high in other high-income regions, North Africa and Middle East, and Oceania.

The news here is that the risk factors have shifted in the last 20 years, not that "OMG cars are baaaaad", still, salty foods are a lot more likely too kill you than a car exhaust.

SUV's (1)

Msdose (867833) | about a year ago | (#42329035)

Cars kill twenty children every hour. Nobody is ever charged. If those children had rifles to protect themselves, none of them would be hit. The cars would avoid them, just like they avoid tractor trailers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...