On 2017-11-28 13:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2017 3:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-28 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What you don't seem to understand
is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a
significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your
imagination.
One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination
with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again.
When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop
breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple.
No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and
"simplistic." Look it up.
It is simple. Fumes (mostly Diesel soot) - air - cyclist - lungs.
What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's
imagination.
Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine.
I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now.
And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!"
crap.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ike-blog#img-2
I know, this doesn't truly exist in your world and will never go into
the lungs with the head stuck in the sand.
Wow, you're a deceptive character you are! Let's look at the entire
article, shall we?
See
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ists-bike-blog
Some quotes, for those who don't care to read the entire article:
"Cycling does remain many, many times better for your health than not
cycling, even factoring in exposure to pollution and the risk of
accident.
I never disputed that. What I am saying is that a cyclist on heavily
traveled roads breathes in lots of bad stuff.
What’s more surprising is that on two wheels you might even be
exposed to less of the smelly stuff than those using other forms of
transport."
Highly doubtful. If you test against a 1960's VW Beetle, yes. Against a
new car with air filter, no.
Also: "Barrett stresses this was no more than an illustrative
demonstration study, but the graph of cumulative exposure is nonetheless
interesting, with the cycle courier encountering the SECOND-LEAST amount
of less black carbon overall, and being exposed to less than the
ambulance driver during work hours as a proportion of the total day."
[Emphasis mine]
And "... it does seem that cycling helps dissipate smog through movement
in the open: A lot of it is about ventilation, and the cycle courier is
in a big, open air room, whereas the ambulance driver is in an enclosed
box."
And "So, as a cyclist, what can you do to limit your exposure? One
simple idea is to take quieter back streets, where the concentration of
some pollutants can be considerably lower than on main roads." (Which is
precisely what I was saying, and precisely what I did on the eleven mile
utility ride I just completed.)
What I was saying is way better: Bike paths and singletrack. That
usually gets you the lowest pollution.
Finally, what you, Joerg, usually fail to understand: "As ever, all this
needs to be placed in context. And the context is clear: CYCLING IS, ON
BALANCE, VERY GOOD FOR YOU EVEN IN BIG CITIES. [Again, emphasis mine]
Think about you emphasized word "EVEN". Riding on separate bike paths
gets you out of the plume and this into much more healthy riding.
"A study last week in the British Medical Journal said London’s hire
bike scheme had brought a clear net benefit to health, as activity
outweighed the risks from pollution or crashes. An earlier study on
Barcelona’s equivalent bike hire scheme, published in the British
Medical Journal, estimated the system saved the city an average of more
than 12 lives a year overall."
Joerg, I know you'll never quit the "Danger! Danger!" crap. I'm just
trying to make sure nobody actually believes you.
I don't care whether you believe me. I make sure my rides use as much
non-road sections as possible. The #1 reason is the greatly improved
safety and the #2 reason is the lower pollution I am exposed to.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/