Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:30:48 -0600
Reply-To: jbrush@AROS.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Brush <jbrush@AROS.NET>
Subject: Re: emission tests are a fraud
In-Reply-To: <001701c0fd13$bc1d0bc0$947c1a41@kc.rr.com>
>He isn't saying that polution is good, or that we shouldn't do anything
>about it. He isn't saying that polution isn't worse in other places than
>Minn. What he is saying is that a five year study showed that vehicle
>testing did not help.
In Minnesota.
Its wrong, wrong, wrong, to condemn all emissions testing
based on one place, one state, one lightly populated, and certainly not
densely populated at that.
> I haven't looked at the study, so I can't comment
>on the science, but if it was done properly, more states should look into
>it.
The all powerful gods of the EPA do not mandate by states, but by
locations, and if they think someplace in Minnesota needed emissions
testing, it would be done, regardless of anyone's study.
Where you live has a lot to do with whether or not emissions testing can
be of value. If you live in a place like I do, Salt Lake City, then you
could see that we live in a valley, surrounded on three sides by
mountains. Smog doesn't blow away here, it tends to hang out and and when
the weather is calm and high pressure exists, its kind of disgusting.
However, if you live in most other places in the state, then you don't
have the same problem because of the surrounding area basically allowing
any 'smog' to blow off and end up in the atmosphere, and the population is
less dense. I consider it rather stupid to say something like "Minnesota
doesn't have a pollution problem" since its a pretty big state, and I bet
some places are worse than others. Perhaps overall, its not bad, but its
too broad a comment to make and have it taken seriously.
We are all just spit marks on the planet earth. If you took every car on
the planet, and I mean ones that are running and used often, you could fit
them all, side by side, right here in the Salt Lake Valley. That's a
pretty tiny spec on the surface of the earth. All together, they cannot
hurt the environment, as the planet is much too large, but in concentrated
areas, the problems arise and so we need to deal with them on an area by
area basis.
Automobile emmissions are not harming the earth, its the concentration in
one place where the effects are most notable, and cause the biggest
problem. My cars are well kept, and don't exceed the emissions standards
of the county, but there are still a lot of cars that I see everyday with
blue smoke pouring out the tailpipe and it pisses me off to think that
anyone can be such a bastard as to drive around with oil and smoke pouring
out of their car. Those folks are right up there with the morons that
throw their cigarette butts out the window. This is where the real
pollution problem lies, and if some state wants to go ahead and let those
cars run around the roads all day long puking oil all over the place, then
I guess they will one day reap what they sow.
I don't like the emissions testing. Its big brother at his finest, but
people are too stupid to police themselves, so I suppose someone has to
intervene and try to preserve something for our children to enjoy, so I
guess that as long as people are so small minded, we will be subjected to
the tests in most major metropolitan areas.
> Which uses more energy
>-- washing dishes in a sink or in a dishwasher? If you think the
>dishwasher uses more energy then you have chosen the obvious -- and wrong
>-- answer.
Here is another in a long line of broad statements made with no
consideration for the facts. We would all do well to avoid making broad,
sweeping commentary without any concern for the details. Just as the
emissions commentary lacks any detail, this statement is made in much the
same way. How many dishes? How much water? What temperature? Without such
details, the comment is not worthy of notice.
> Now I know that I am new to the list and everything, so I don't want to
>upset any tree huggers out there,
I don't think there is any need to call a person a tree hugger simply
because he or she might have a concern for the overall quality of the air
they breath, and the land they live on.
> but emission tests are a fraud.
In Minnesota maybe, but here again we see the broad comment that is made
based on nothing but the results of one study, done in one place.
Its a REALLY big planet, and yet so many people think that they can see
the whole picture, when in fact they do not even see past the end of their
driveway.
John