Re: Fate of 85/86 class

["Ed" <ews3@ozemail.com.au>]

Diesel engines produce very nasty carcinogenic 'dust particle' compounds in
the 10 to 20 micron size range (ie very small), which the lungs have great
difficulty in removing.  Petrol engines also produce noxious gasses, but
much much less of these carcinogenic 'particles'.

So the next time someone tells you that 'diesel fuel is more environmental
because it takes less energy to refine, and only produces particulate
smoke' - tell them their (lungs) are full of it!

:-)

Actually this would be a good joke if we weren't all choking in it.

Ed



Ben wrote in message <389D53D8.F42585D@yahoo.com>...
>
>
>John McCandless wrote:
>
>>  > And also, whatever happened to environmental resposibility? The
>> > electrics are much cleaner than any diesel will ever be. While cheaper,
>> > diesel produces noxious gases and carcinogens aplenty and considering
>> > the scale at which the diesels are used in Sydney (where electrics
could
>> > be used) that's a huge contribution to pollution levels.
>>
>> True, it's a lot easier to control the emissions out of 2 or 3
smokestacks
>> at the power station, than it is to control a fleet of diesels....
>> BUT, what is a worse pollutant?  Is it diesel exhausts or
common-or-garden
>>  super and unleaded engines?
>
>I recall a statistic (put out by the NRMA or nsw gov. I think) that said
>diesel motor vehicles were responsible for 75% of all motor vehicle
pollution
>in Sydney, despite there much smaller numberof these compared with the
number
>of petrol vehicles. Of course my memory could be completely or partially
>faulty.
>
>
>Ben Munro
>
>