New Harvard Study - Stricter Air Quality Needed to Prevent Deaths

[Buzz]

Since they had successful particulate regulation decades before the greenhouse gas emission regulations,
the link is not as matter of fact as suggested.
If it is possible to have combustion of a hydrocarbon without any particulate emission.
Combustion

Now wait a minute here... about 3 months ago you and Lord of Planar both argued that all combustion produces smoke.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/283021-atmospheric-chemistry-warming-cooling-dust.html

:lamo

 

[longview]

Now wait a minute here... about 3 months ago you and Lord of Planar both argued that all combustion produces smoke.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/283021-atmospheric-chemistry-warming-cooling-dust.html

:lamo

Incomplete combustion, the actual chemistry only has the result of the combustion, I.E. H2O and CO2.

 

[Buzz]

Incomplete combustion, the actual chemistry only has the result of the combustion, I.E. H2O and CO2.

Yes, that was basically what I was saying 3 months ago. And you and Lord denied this. Don't pretend you said otherwise.

The old saying is, Where there is smoke there is fire!" but the opposite really is true,
where there is fire there is always some form of smoke. (along with soot, CO2, lots of volitional organic compounds, ect.)

Then I replied:

Not true. Most of the fire made in homes and business around the world used for heating does not produce smoke. If it does there is a problem with the combustion process. Especially with the burning of natural gas and propane.

And you guys replied with:

Actually they all produce some form of combustion product, it may not be visible,
but it is there.

Yep.

Without at least a catalytic converter, there is always some aerosols and unwanted gasses like NOx

It is funny how your facts change depending on the argument you're making.

 

[longview]

Yes, that was basically what I was saying 3 months ago. And you and Lord denied this. Don't pretend you said otherwise.



Then I replied:



And you guys replied with:





It is funny how your facts change depending on the argument you're making.

So do you think H2O and CO2 are combustion products? I do!

 

[Buzz]

So do you think H2O and CO2 are combustion products? I do!

Of course they are. But they are not smoke like in your first statement. Shall I take this as an admission that you were wrong?

 

[longview]

Of course they are. But they are not smoke like in your first statement. Shall I take this as an admission that you were wrong?

I think modern heat engines are not perfect, and do not create complete combustion.
That is different than saying the result of actual combustion will always create particulate pollution.
It is possible to have combustion without the particulate pollution, but likely does not happen often.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now wait a minute here... about 3 months ago you and Lord of Planar both argued that all combustion produces smoke.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/283021-atmospheric-chemistry-warming-cooling-dust.html

:lamo

I never made any such claim. All combustion produces CO2, and generally H2O... But where did I say "smoke?"

And where did Longview say that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, that was basically what I was saying 3 months ago. And you and Lord denied this. Don't pretend you said otherwise.



Then I replied:



And you guys replied with:





It is funny how your facts change depending on the argument you're making.

Funny how you twist things.

Is that ignorance or deceit?

 

[Media_Truth]

Funny how you twist things.

Is that ignorance or deceit?

Can't you dispense with the name-calling and belittlement? Every argument, you resort to this.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can't you dispense with the name-calling and belittlement? Every argument, you resort to this.

Maybe... If you can ask about what you aren't sure of instead of accusations.

I dislike accusations!

I'm perfectly willing to elaborate when there is a question about what I said. I do not take kindly to saying I said something I did not.

 

[Buzz]

I think modern heat engines are not perfect, and do not create complete combustion.
That is different than saying the result of actual combustion will always create particulate pollution.
It is possible to have combustion without the particulate pollution, but likely does not happen often.

If combustion without particulate pollution does not happen often as you say then why did you bring it up in the first place?

I love it when you guys have to resort to mental gymnastics to avoid ever admitting you were wrong. It's a hoot!!

 

[Buzz]

Funny how you twist things.

How am I twisting things?

You also said this:

I don't think there are any carbon related flames that do not cause soot.

Another false statement.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How am I twisting things?

You also said this:



Another false statement.

Do all combustion actions have "flames?"

Words have meaning... See a proper dictionary...

 

[Buzz]

Do all combustion actions have "flames?"

Words have meaning... See a proper dictionary...

WTF are you talking about? The question isn't whether or not all combustion has flame but whether or not all combustion produces soot(also known as smoke).

Have you started drinking? Maybe you should wait until tomorrow to reply.

 

[Lord of Planar]

WTF are you talking about? The question isn't whether or not all combustion has flame but whether or not all combustion produces soot(also known as smoke).

Have you started drinking? Maybe you should wait until tomorrow to reply.

LOL...

Sorry, you are fun to toy with.

Please explain to me, how my statement saying "I don't think there are any carbon related flames that do not cause soot," means that it is visible smoke?

I'll drink later tonight:

Probably from one of these:

 

[Buzz]

LOL...

Sorry, you are fun to toy with.

How can you be toying with me when you haven't disproven a single thing I have said?

Please explain to me, how my statement saying "I don't think there are any carbon related flames that do not cause soot," means that it is visible smoke?

Who said anything about smoke having to be visible? This debate is really about particulate matter and not whether it is visible or not. And since soot IS particulate matter and you claimed all carbon based burning creates soot then how can you suggest I am wrong? You can't!

I'll drink later tonight:

Probably from one of these:

Damn.... and I thought I spent a lot on booze. You have me beat by a long shot. Are you sure you haven't started yet?

 

[Lord of Planar]

How can you be toying with me when you haven't disproven a single thing I have said?



Who said anything about smoke having to be visible? This debate is really about particulate matter and not whether it is visible or not. And since soot IS particulate matter and you claimed all carbon based burning creates soot then how can you suggest I am wrong? You can't!



Damn.... and I thought I spent a lot on booze. You have me beat by a long shot. Are you sure you haven't started yet?

Well, if you like Bourbons, try the Elijah Craig sometime. They don't advertise as such, but they the regular small batch at 94 proof is aged 12 years, and very smooth. Even the barrel strength is 12 yr and are $60 a bottle where I live, is very smooth, neat.

Didn't have any drinks until until just before 19:00 Pacific time. Went to a bar and talked with my favorite bartender. Anyway, just had two Fresh Squeezed IPA's, and I'm home now.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Who said anything about smoke having to be visible? This debate is really about particulate matter and not whether it is visible or not. And since soot IS particulate matter and you claimed all carbon based burning creates soot then how can you suggest I am wrong? You can't!

From a trusted dictionary:

1: the cloud of black, gray, or white gases and dust that is produced by burning something
​

Smoke - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

 

[longview]

If combustion without particulate pollution does not happen often as you say then why did you bring it up in the first place?

I love it when you guys have to resort to mental gymnastics to avoid ever admitting you were wrong. It's a hoot!!

Modern engines with catalytic converters on the exhaust, eliminate the vast majority of particulate pollution from incomplete combustion.
The remaining particulate pollution is from the fuel itself not being pure.
If one made pure gasoline or pure diesel, there would be almost zero particulate pollution after the catalytic converter.

 

[Media_Truth]

Modern engines with catalytic converters on the exhaust, eliminate the vast majority of particulate pollution from incomplete combustion.
The remaining particulate pollution is from the fuel itself not being pure.
If one made pure gasoline or pure diesel, there would be almost zero particulate pollution after the catalytic converter.

Catalytic converters are great devices, but they do not even start to operate, until the temperature gets up to appropriate level. So until warmup, it has ZERO efficiency. I'm not sure about the efficiency after that, however, there are a lot of issues that can cause the converters to fail. As we all know, automobiles are often not maintained in optimal condition.

https://www.2carpros.com/articles/how-to-test-a-catalytic-converter

When a vehicle is operating properly the converter is able to function with little effort. However there are many reasons for premature failure such as;
Excessive oil consumption
Poor or weak ignition (fouled spark plugs or misfires)
Burnt or leaking exhaust valve
Faulty oxygen sensor
Excessive fuel mixture
Low engine compression
Exhaust manifold leak

Also, in the winter, when pollution is usually worst, the warmup is slower, so exhaust goes untreated for a longer period.

 

[countryboy]

1. If you've ever worked at a Brewery, you would know that this is a false statement. CO2 is a odorlous, colorlous gas, and before entry into confined spaces (tanks, etc), meters have to be used, to check levels. It displaces oxygen. Close your garage door, and start your car, if you don't believe me.
2. Granted, we're talking about confined spaces. However, how do you know that greenhouse-gas induced climate change has NOT caused a hurricane, or flood, or earthquake, or tsunami, wildfires, etc? You don't know that it hasn't, any more than I know that it has. Many of the 97% of science experts who advocate man-induced climate change believe we are creating conditions to make these catastrophic events more probable.
3. Since when is the definition of a pollutant, something which kills somebody? Many people don't die from particulate matter in the air, but they suffer severe asthmatic conditions. Certain water pollutants, affect the nervous system, and cause partial paralysis. I would go so far to say that, in most cases, the worst pollutants cause serious (or minor) health problems, and not actual death.

If you had a shred of credibility, it is now lost. In this instance at least, you are confusing CO with CO2.

 

[Media_Truth]

If you had a shred of credibility, it is now lost. In this instance at least, you are confusing CO with CO2.

Both can be deadly. Do some research, and you'll find that that is true.

 

[countryboy]

Both can be deadly. Do some research, and you'll find that that is true.

It's not CO2 that kills in an enclosed space with a running vehicle.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's not CO2 that kills in an enclosed space with a running vehicle.

So true.

It's the combustion of the engine taking the oxygen.

I wonder at what level the car engine would stop working first? I would think it would die before a person does, but they would probably be rendered unconscious.

 

[Media_Truth]

It's not CO2 that kills in an enclosed space with a running vehicle.

I'm not arguing with your comments. However, if the CO doesn't get you, the CO2 will. Both are present, depending on humidity, through the reaction, CO + H2O = CO2 + H2. Introduction of CO2 into a confined space can be deadly. It is heavier than air, and it's colorlous and odorlous. Victims pass out, and die of aphyxiation rather quickly.

NIOSH report details dangers of carbon dioxide in confined spaces

The potential health effects of exposure to CO2 levels between 2 and 10 percent, according to Benaise, include: headache; increased heart rate; dizziness; fatigue; rapid breathing; and visual and hearing dysfunctions. Exposure to even higher levels can lead to unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.