Hakan, Thank you for this reminder that it is the connection with public health that provides much of the rationale and impetus for adoption of environmentally friendly (maybe we should start calling them "people-and-pet-friendly"!) fuels. If we have trouble making the connection to climate change, conflict, etc., maybe we can at least make the more direct connection to our lungs and hearts.
I am sure all on the list will welcome this and any more studies you'll wish to provide links to and perhaps summaries of - I know I will appreciate seeing them. Best, Edward Beggs On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 09:51 PM, Hakan Falk wrote: > > Ed, > > I read your posting and thought it was good. It was however some more > about the EU studies that I think are very valuable. It was studies of > the > fatality rate, in those were also gasoline included. It is also very > strong > arguments for biofuels, because if we assume that particulates from the > fossil fuels kill 2+ times as many as traffic accidents, you are > talking > about in the hundred of thousands per year in US. I did postings about > it > at the time, but it is worth mentioning. > > Bifuels almost eliminates the direct death toll from exhaust > particulates > and have a potential for spectacular results both in death, hospital > and > other social costs. If you look at the major source for ultra fine > particles, > it is the transport. The papers I have seen, does not talk about many > other sources of ultra fine particulates, even indoor in cities, it > comes > from traffic pollution. A mask in a warehouse must be quite advanced, > if it would help for ultra fine particulates. I have not seen > protection gear > in the class of gas masks yet, but it might be necessary. The very > large > reduction from biofuels, must be a better solution. > > It is more than Toy studies in the medical field and you will find the > EU > studies. > > Hakan > > > At 03:33 13/04/2004, you wrote: >> Hakan, I certainly appreciate that there are many similar studies >> here, >> so the issue is not whether ultrafiine particles are dangerous, they >> are. >> >> However, the question was originally posed as to whether a forklift on >> biodiesel in a warehouse is better than one on natural gas, I posted >> information that suggested it might be, Keith questioned whether that >> Toy (Harvard) study was as useful in answering the question as we'd >> like, etc. >> >> I do not mean to minimize the proven health risk of ultrafine >> particles, but there are many sources of these in life, and you'd >> probably need to wear a mask and use an electric forklift in a >> warehouse, for the best protection in terms of occupational health >> (long term daily exposure in the warehouse environment). >> >> Indoor air quality, including in the home, is also a serious issue in >> regard to PM10, PM2.5 and ultrafine particles - many say more serious >> than outdoor air quality. >> >> However, I am definitely interested in seeing more studies on this and >> of course especially good ones that may corroborate the findings of >> Toy >> et al. >> >> Now, as to risk assessment, and the perception of risk, I stand by my >> comments. There are many instances where people believe there is risk >> that is not there, and minimize risk that is present. For a company >> with a legitimate and safe product, it is fair that they be trained >> and >> understand how "perception is reality", and get government and >> consumer >> acceptance so they can succeed even though there may be some inital >> "scary sounding" aspect to their product or service that is not >> justified in reality. >> >> That's different from greenwashing, which does occur, of course! >> >> Again, I do not mean to include ultrafine particles in this discussion >> as being something that is not to be taken seriously as a health risk. >> I have had much personal and immediate family experience with the >> health problems related to air quality, and that is what led to my >> interest in this field and to the contribution that biofuels for >> diesel >> can make to improving the situation. We'll need more than the Toy >> study >> to point to, though, if it's a comparison of "which is better, natural >> gas or clean diesel/green diesel/biodiesel/SVO, etc.") >> >> Edward Beggs >> <http://www.biofuels.ca>http://www.biofuels.ca >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 05:54 PM, Hakan Falk wrote: >> >>> >>> Ed, >>> >>> In the Europe investigations from Switzerland and France, it was also >>> estimates of how many fatalities the Ultra fine particles (less than >>> 2.5 >>> micron) caused per year. The direct fatality figures were around >>> twice >>> the >>> number of fatalities caused by road accidents. It is not a subject >>> that can >>> be neglected and it is serious. In Switzer land, the fatalities were >>> something around 2,000 per year. >>> >>> Hakan >>> >>> >>> At 21:18 12/04/2004, you wrote: >>>> Just on this section on risk assessment, I think this differs from >>>> deliberate or subconscious researcher bias, in that there *are* many >>>> instances where people fear what ought not be feared, and ignore >>>> what >>>> they should fear, or consider it to be safe (a good example would be >>>> that because its is "natural" versus "synthetic" it's better/safer - >>>> that's a pretty common sentiment, but not necessarily true). >>>> >>>> Mention "PCB's" and people will recoil in fear, even though, IIRC, >>>> there are only a few of the many PCB's out there that are *very* >>>> harmful, and many more that are not very harmful. >>>> >>>> I don't think that offering courses to the business sector on this >>>> topic is *necessarily* a bad thing or makes the group offering them >>>> a >>>> bad bunch - it's like teaching technology (or other branches of >>>> psychology), it is the intent, and the end use that the student puts >>>> the information to that matters. >>>> >>>> I understand that this sort of thing can be used to "spin-doctor" an >>>> environmental "bad idea" into something that sounds ok, but it can >>>> also >>>> be used to prevent an unfair, unwarranted public bias that could >>>> prevent a perfectly good product/service/company from existing just >>>> because it "sounds scary" or was poorly presented. >>>> >>>> Bottom line: some things sound great, but might be, in all or some >>>> circumstances, downright dangerous. >>>> >>>> e.g. "Local residents make cleaner burning "biodiesel" on the >>>> kitchen >>>> stove!" >>>> >>>> Others sound dangerous, but might very well be virtually harmless >>>> (at >>>> least on a strictly technical/scientific basis!) >>>> >>>> e.g. "New dihydrogen monoxide plant, owned by Monsanto, to open >>>> immediately next to residential area!!" >>>> >>>> >> <<http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm>http://www.snopes.com/toxins/ >> dhmo.htm>http://www.snopes.com/toxins/ >> >>>> dhmo.htm >>>> >>>> It ain't easy being green, nor searching for "the truth"! >>>> >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> Edward Beggs >>>> >>>> On Monday, April 12, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Neoteric Biofuels Inc wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> HCRA not only analyses risk but, in conjunction with allied >>>>>>> institutions, also runs courses on 'risk communication". "Learn >>>>>>> how >>>>>>> to more effectively communicate about risk issues with various >>>>>>> audiences, and how to incorporate risk communication into the >>>>>>> strategic operation of your organization. A combination of expert >>>>>>> instruction, class participation, and real-world examples of >>>>>>> successes and failures in risk communication will give you an >>>>>>> understanding of the theoretical and practical issues involved," >>>>>>> promotional material for a May 2003 seminar stated. The course >>>>>>> program Directors were George M. Gray, David P. Ropeik and Ragnar >>>>>>> Lšfstedt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another course scheduled for April 2002, HCRA and their co-hosts >>>>>>> promised that those attending the two and a half day long "Risk >>>>>>> Communication Challenge" course would "learn the underlying >>>>>>> psychology of how people 'decide' what to be afraid of and how >>>>>>> afraid to be. You will learn how to select and craft key >>>>>>> messages, >>>>>>> how to deliver those messages, and how to work with the media to >>>>>>> get >>>>>>> your message out". > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ---------------------~--> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & > Canada. > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ~-> > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
