From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: INFO: Pollution Levels Inside Cars Up to 18 Times Higher Than Outside
Date: 27 Sep 1992 02:03:49 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Greenpeace.22Sep1992.5@naughty-peahen.org>, Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>  
>POLLUTION LEVELS INSIDE CARS UP TO EIGHTEEN TIMES THOSE OUTSIDE,
>SAYS GREENPEACE REPORT

Great!  Greenpeace has finally discovered that improperly maintained exhaust
systems can be dangerous to occupants of motor vehicles.  Of course, as long as
20 years ago, the Baltimore County Board of Education was teaching people that
it's a bad idea to drive with your windows completely closed.  Just goes to
show, nobody (even GreenHype) can be wrong all the time.
>LONDON September 9, 1992 (GP) A report commissioned by
>Greenpeace from Earth Resources Research shows that in many
>traffic conditions pollution levels inside cars can be up to
>eighteen times higher [1] than those in "ambient" air outside.

Notice that, as usual, GreenHype uses the worst-case figures for its press
release.  Yackadam would be proud of them.  I wonder what the distribution of
pollution levels looked like?  How many vehicles had interior levels, say,
about 3 times the "ambient" levels?

>The report shows that cars do not provide protection to drivers
>and passengers from pollution from traffic.  Drivers can be
>exposed to even higher levels of health-damaging pollutants than
>those experienced by cyclists and pedestrians [2].

Anybody remember the movie _Slaughterhouse_Five_?  When did that movie come
out?  GreenHype finally caught on!



>"There is no safe haven from traffic pollution," said Charlie
>Kronick, Greenpeace Transport Campaigner. "Winding up the window
>won't help: drivers cannot simply shut themselves away from the
>effects of the pollution they create. The only real solution is
>to cut the number of cars on our roads."

Hmm.  I'd've thought that reducing the amount of pollution produced per vehicle
would also be a solution.  I guess that's not part of GreenHype's political
agenda, though.

>The World Health Organization (WHO) states that "no safe level
>for airborne benzene can be recommended as it is carcinogenic to
>humans and there is no known safe threshold level" [8]. Research
>shows that the average exposure of drivers to benzene can be as
>much as eighteen times higher than that experienced in ambient
>air [9].

Let's look more closely at the above paragraph:  If one were to read it
uncritically, one could be led to believe that the WHO said that there is no
safe level for airborne benzene.  That's what GreenHype would LIKE you to
believe.  Of course, that's not what the WHO said.  What they said was that
we don't know whether there's a safe level for benzene, and if there is a safe
level, we don't know what it is.  One would expect that the WHO would've
mentioned what the lowest known dangerous level is.  Presumably it's pretty
high, because studies of carcinogens typically involve HUGE doses (otherwise
you don't get enough cancers per dollar of research funding).  I wonder how the
lowest known level known to cause cancers compares to the levels measured in
the studies GreenHype's touting?

>Increases in traffic as projected by the Government (up to 142%
>by 2025 [10]) will exacerbate the situation. Recent data from
>the US, where the majority of vehicles now use catalytic
>converters, still shows high levels of pollution.

Yes, it will exacerbate the problem.  Of course, GreenHype used the phrase "up
to 142%" (I wonder how they managed to get an estimate good to three
significant digits?) when they could have used the phrase "up to 2.5 times as
much traffic."  I guess the former sounds bigger, more scientific, and more
precise all at once.  Now, the emphasis placed on the fact that the majority of
vehicles in the U.S. now use catalytic converters would seem to imply that this
is not the case in Great Britain.  Gee.  Since the introduction of catalytic
converters in the U.S., the pollution per vehicle mile has gone down by
something like a factor of 10.  If the same turns out to be true for Great
Britain, we get:

2.5 times the traffic * .1 times the the pollution per unit of traffic
	= 1/4 the total pollution from traffic.
Hardly the impressive 142% increase in pollution that GreenHype would have us
believe, is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.