CHOKE on this!
#271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41e25c92$0$19166$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "Hovel in your element"?
>
> "Revel"?
>
> DAS
> --
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> [...]
> > Then you can hovel in your element.
Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that the
people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity are
incompetent stupid ones. Think how much more enjoyable this knucklehead is
when he thinks he's being witty, rather than understanding he's quite
dimwitted.
Geez....some people kill all the fun :^)
#272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Philip wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>>Huw wrote:
>>
>>>"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>>>>>relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
>>>>>the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huw
>>>>
>>>>But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>>Huw
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>something else.
>
>
> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
> feet?
Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather
common, isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
> Marvin wrote:
>
>>Huw wrote:
>>
>>>"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>>>>>relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
>>>>>the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huw
>>>>
>>>>But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>>Huw
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>something else.
>
>
> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
> feet?
Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather
common, isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
#273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Philip wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>>Huw wrote:
>>
>>>"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>>>>>relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
>>>>>the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huw
>>>>
>>>>But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>>Huw
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>something else.
>
>
> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
> feet?
Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather
common, isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
> Marvin wrote:
>
>>Huw wrote:
>>
>>>"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>>>>>relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
>>>>>the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huw
>>>>
>>>>But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>>Huw
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>something else.
>
>
> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
> feet?
Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather
common, isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
#276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:10u5idop0vi8ied@corp.supernews.com...
> Philip wrote:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>>Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Huw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>>cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>>yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>>is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>>vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>>>>>>relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
>>>>>>the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>>until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>>it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>>directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>>It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>>as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>>highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>>Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>
>>>>Huw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>>something else.
>>
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at
>> 10 feet?
>
> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that needs a
> tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common, isn't it? Is
> that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
Depends which Country you are in and how old the vehicle. Older vehicles
were built to different standards.
As for heavy smoke, then older worn petrol engines are the worse stinkers of
all, after 1970's petrol cars ['pre cat' over here]. Then come older diesels
and especially buses. Buses are particularly pungent which is ironic since
they commonly work in towns where a clean and neutral exhaust is most
important.
Huw
#277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:10u5idop0vi8ied@corp.supernews.com...
> Philip wrote:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>>Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Huw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>>cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>>yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>>is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>>vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
>>>>>>relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
>>>>>>the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>>until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>>it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>>directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>>It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>>as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>>highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>>Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>
>>>>Huw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>>something else.
>>
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at
>> 10 feet?
>
> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that needs a
> tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common, isn't it? Is
> that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
Depends which Country you are in and how old the vehicle. Older vehicles
were built to different standards.
As for heavy smoke, then older worn petrol engines are the worse stinkers of
all, after 1970's petrol cars ['pre cat' over here]. Then come older diesels
and especially buses. Buses are particularly pungent which is ironic since
they commonly work in towns where a clean and neutral exhaust is most
important.
Huw
#278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Marvin wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>> highlight
>>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>
>>>> Huw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>> something else.
>>
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
NOT been behind at some point. LOL
I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
--
~Philip.
> Philip wrote:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>> highlight
>>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>
>>>> Huw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>> something else.
>>
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
NOT been behind at some point. LOL
I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
--
~Philip.
#279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Marvin wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>> highlight
>>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>
>>>> Huw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>> something else.
>>
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
NOT been behind at some point. LOL
I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
--
~Philip.
> Philip wrote:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>> highlight
>>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
>>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>
>>>> Huw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>> something else.
>>
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
NOT been behind at some point. LOL
I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
--
~Philip.
#280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Yes, obviously British, but I liked the assertion from that StingRay chappie
about always being able to tell an "Englishman"... :-)
Sort of reminds of the time when I lived in digs in Penarth (suburb of
Cardiff, capital of Wales, for those not in Europe) many moons ago.
My parents once sent me a letter from abroad (they're not English or
British) addressed to me in Cardiff, England. My landlord gave me quite a
lecture... :-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34g4o5F48v7j8U1@individual.net...
[...]
>
> Welsh and British.
>
> Huw
>
about always being able to tell an "Englishman"... :-)
Sort of reminds of the time when I lived in digs in Penarth (suburb of
Cardiff, capital of Wales, for those not in Europe) many moons ago.
My parents once sent me a letter from abroad (they're not English or
British) addressed to me in Cardiff, England. My landlord gave me quite a
lecture... :-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34g4o5F48v7j8U1@individual.net...
[...]
>
> Welsh and British.
>
> Huw
>
#281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Yes, obviously British, but I liked the assertion from that StingRay chappie
about always being able to tell an "Englishman"... :-)
Sort of reminds of the time when I lived in digs in Penarth (suburb of
Cardiff, capital of Wales, for those not in Europe) many moons ago.
My parents once sent me a letter from abroad (they're not English or
British) addressed to me in Cardiff, England. My landlord gave me quite a
lecture... :-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34g4o5F48v7j8U1@individual.net...
[...]
>
> Welsh and British.
>
> Huw
>
about always being able to tell an "Englishman"... :-)
Sort of reminds of the time when I lived in digs in Penarth (suburb of
Cardiff, capital of Wales, for those not in Europe) many moons ago.
My parents once sent me a letter from abroad (they're not English or
British) addressed to me in Cardiff, England. My landlord gave me quite a
lecture... :-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34g4o5F48v7j8U1@individual.net...
[...]
>
> Welsh and British.
>
> Huw
>
#282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:10u5idop0vi8ied@corp.supernews.com...
>> Philip wrote:
>>> Marvin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating
>>>>>>>> adolescents is the only solution to smoking, because they are the
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>>>> tolerated
>>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise,
>>>>>>> but it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>>>> create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car
>>> exhaust at 10 feet?
>>
>> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
>> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
>> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> Depends which Country you are in and how old the vehicle. Older
> vehicles were built to different standards.
> As for heavy smoke, then older worn petrol engines are the worse
> stinkers of all, after 1970's petrol cars ['pre cat' over here]. Then
> come older diesels and especially buses. Buses are particularly
> pungent which is ironic since they commonly work in towns where a
> clean and neutral exhaust is most important.
>
> Huw
Is it not remarkable how much 'tolerance' vehicles recognized for being an
intrigal part of the economy and/or a political agenda get! LOL
--
~Philip.
> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:10u5idop0vi8ied@corp.supernews.com...
>> Philip wrote:
>>> Marvin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating
>>>>>>>> adolescents is the only solution to smoking, because they are the
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>>>> tolerated
>>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise,
>>>>>>> but it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>>>> create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car
>>> exhaust at 10 feet?
>>
>> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
>> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
>> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> Depends which Country you are in and how old the vehicle. Older
> vehicles were built to different standards.
> As for heavy smoke, then older worn petrol engines are the worse
> stinkers of all, after 1970's petrol cars ['pre cat' over here]. Then
> come older diesels and especially buses. Buses are particularly
> pungent which is ironic since they commonly work in towns where a
> clean and neutral exhaust is most important.
>
> Huw
Is it not remarkable how much 'tolerance' vehicles recognized for being an
intrigal part of the economy and/or a political agenda get! LOL
--
~Philip.
#283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:10u5idop0vi8ied@corp.supernews.com...
>> Philip wrote:
>>> Marvin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating
>>>>>>>> adolescents is the only solution to smoking, because they are the
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>>>> tolerated
>>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise,
>>>>>>> but it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>>>> create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car
>>> exhaust at 10 feet?
>>
>> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
>> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
>> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> Depends which Country you are in and how old the vehicle. Older
> vehicles were built to different standards.
> As for heavy smoke, then older worn petrol engines are the worse
> stinkers of all, after 1970's petrol cars ['pre cat' over here]. Then
> come older diesels and especially buses. Buses are particularly
> pungent which is ironic since they commonly work in towns where a
> clean and neutral exhaust is most important.
>
> Huw
Is it not remarkable how much 'tolerance' vehicles recognized for being an
intrigal part of the economy and/or a political agenda get! LOL
--
~Philip.
> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:10u5idop0vi8ied@corp.supernews.com...
>> Philip wrote:
>>> Marvin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating
>>>>>>>> adolescents is the only solution to smoking, because they are the
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>>>> tolerated
>>>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise,
>>>>>>> but it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>>>> create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car
>>> exhaust at 10 feet?
>>
>> Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
>> needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
>> isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> Depends which Country you are in and how old the vehicle. Older
> vehicles were built to different standards.
> As for heavy smoke, then older worn petrol engines are the worse
> stinkers of all, after 1970's petrol cars ['pre cat' over here]. Then
> come older diesels and especially buses. Buses are particularly
> pungent which is ironic since they commonly work in towns where a
> clean and neutral exhaust is most important.
>
> Huw
Is it not remarkable how much 'tolerance' vehicles recognized for being an
intrigal part of the economy and/or a political agenda get! LOL
--
~Philip.
#284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
In article <H6BEd.3321$C52.2656@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
> > Philip wrote:
> >> Marvin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huw wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Huw wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
> >>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
> >>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
> >>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
> >>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
> >>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
> >>>>>> highlight
> >>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
> >>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
> >>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
> >>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
> >>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
> >>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
> >>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
> >>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
> >>>>
> >>>> Huw
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> >>> something else.
> >>
> >>
> >> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> >> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
> >> at 10 feet?
> >
> > Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> > needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> > isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
> NOT been behind at some point. LOL
>
> I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
> could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
> frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
In cold weather diesels stink bad, real bad. In fact so bad I have to
close off my external air mix valve. Buses are real bad. School buses
are even stinkier. Those with exhaust pipes off the side instead of up
the top like the big trucks, blow that crap right into the cars.
--
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
> > Philip wrote:
> >> Marvin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huw wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Huw wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
> >>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
> >>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
> >>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
> >>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
> >>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
> >>>>>> highlight
> >>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
> >>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
> >>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
> >>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
> >>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
> >>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
> >>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
> >>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
> >>>>
> >>>> Huw
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> >>> something else.
> >>
> >>
> >> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> >> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
> >> at 10 feet?
> >
> > Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> > needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> > isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
> NOT been behind at some point. LOL
>
> I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
> could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
> frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
In cold weather diesels stink bad, real bad. In fact so bad I have to
close off my external air mix valve. Buses are real bad. School buses
are even stinkier. Those with exhaust pipes off the side instead of up
the top like the big trucks, blow that crap right into the cars.
--
#285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
In article <H6BEd.3321$C52.2656@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
> > Philip wrote:
> >> Marvin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huw wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Huw wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
> >>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
> >>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
> >>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
> >>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
> >>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
> >>>>>> highlight
> >>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
> >>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
> >>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
> >>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
> >>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
> >>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
> >>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
> >>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
> >>>>
> >>>> Huw
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> >>> something else.
> >>
> >>
> >> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> >> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
> >> at 10 feet?
> >
> > Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> > needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> > isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
> NOT been behind at some point. LOL
>
> I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
> could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
> frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
In cold weather diesels stink bad, real bad. In fact so bad I have to
close off my external air mix valve. Buses are real bad. School buses
are even stinkier. Those with exhaust pipes off the side instead of up
the top like the big trucks, blow that crap right into the cars.
--
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
> > Philip wrote:
> >> Marvin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huw wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Huw wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
> >>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
> >>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
> >>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking, because they are the most
> >>>>>>> vulnerable to peer pressure and other influences.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
> >>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
> >>>>>> highlight
> >>>>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
> >>>>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
> >>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
> >>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
> >>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
> >>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
> >>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
> >>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
> >>>>
> >>>> Huw
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> >>> something else.
> >>
> >>
> >> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> >> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
> >> at 10 feet?
> >
> > Have you ever been behind a car or truck with a diesel engine that
> > needs a tuneup? Did you notice the heavy smoke? Rather common,
> > isn't it? Is that like second-hand tobacco smoke?
>
> At 70 years, and a being a retired line driver, there isn't anything I have
> NOT been behind at some point. LOL
>
> I have seen plenty of drivers in truck stops whose cigarette or pipe smoke
> could match that of a good running early 1980's Oldsmobile (choke). The
> frequency of diesels belching smoke is the exception these days.
In cold weather diesels stink bad, real bad. In fact so bad I have to
close off my external air mix valve. Buses are real bad. School buses
are even stinkier. Those with exhaust pipes off the side instead of up
the top like the big trucks, blow that crap right into the cars.
--