Reply With QuoteI think I will also go for a Decat.
Afterall I will only breathe in probably 5% of the exhaust
Master
I just have a second thought.
I think the cw experiment is probably only looking g at vascular events rather than cancers....
I vaguely remember I have read a few trials looking into the correlation between diesel exhaust and impaired vascular function
Master
I think I will also go for a Decat.
Afterall I will only breathe in probably 5% of the exhaust
If it's illegal the companies can't knowingly insure it. If the company finds out its illegal they can reject a claim.Originally Posted by Beery
Diesel exhaust emissions are the number two cancer-causing agent in Australia (skin cancer is number one). About 1.2 million Aussies are exposed each year.
So anything we do to make our exhaust emissions dirtier is basically saying we don't care if we harm many people as long as we get a bit more vroom vroom under the right foot.
Diesel - Cancer Council Australia
Yeah! I agree. Either do the decat or don’t...
People *think* they’re being intelligent by over-analysing things.Reality is they’re working at a justification to match their moral sentiment.
If your thoughts on removing an emissions device conflict with your morals then look at other alternatives.
Example:
Lagging the Cat and Pipes with thermal wrap will reduce engine bay and floor temperatures whilst keeping the systems in place.
Master
By 'allowance' I'm implying it be made law.
Can't happen.
TopicToaster
SubscriberAs a scientist and a business person, what he says is fact. There is a whole field of medical professionals who study this very stuff, and find some very interesting things. The human model (physiologically and psychologiacally) is interesting. Whether you are weighing up a purchase of a bottle of milk, a coffee or a de-cat pipe, the risk / return or Cost-benefit comes into it- whether you know it or not. ie calculating the heck out of the variables, or thinking 'aww gee, I really can't afford to spend this, given what I get back for my money'. Likewise, you could spend your days sucking the soot of an old 8V-71 2 stroke diesel and die of old age, when another person may die after a week of exposure. Humans are funny creatures.
As for VW working on monkeys, we haven't had a much better animal model since the days of Dr Joseph Mengele...
I should stop now... if I had a dollar for each time someone called me a boring nerd, I'd have an average daily income of $5.73, with a standard deviation of $1.26.
-Mitch
'El Burro' 2012 Defender 90.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying make the choice. Do it or don’t. If a person can justify it in their head then do so...
As for the human model... let’s face it, we’re all a bunch of fruitcakes!
Fossicker
My issue with the last 6 pages of this thread is that he's doing all these napkin analyses with assumptions.
Unless he has put together a round table of engineers from Ford and Landrover and medical and environmental experts specializing in diesel emissions, how can he do the cost benefit analysis? Does he know exactly what type of cat it is and what exactly it is doing? Is it there for environmental reasons or health reasons? Or is it just bureaucracy reasons because it is a grey area of science and easier just to make it a blanket rule? More importantly, he has modified his engine by re-mapping and removing the egr function so is the cat even functioning correctly anymore anyway? And as others have mentioned the people mostly affected by this decision are the people driving behind him and I didn't see the selfishness part considered in the equation. It's like the whole passive smoking debate all over again.
I'd like to get back on topic. So is there anywhere in Sydney I can buy a readymade pipe off the shelf so I can fit it myself on a weekend? I don't care as much about other people or pandas as I do about not having hot legs in summer anymore. No maths needed for me.
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks