27 ms·

Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature review (2018)

135 points by WebbWeaver 4y ago

ParksNet 4y ago
Fortunately all of this is eliminated with EVs: much less brake dust (regenerative braking), no combustion, no catalytic converters, no oil leaks. All that's left is tire wear, potentially a little higher due to increased typical weight of EVs and faster acceleration.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Tire dust is half of it, though. It can be reduced by shipping cars with high-efficiency tires instead of high-performance tires.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    What are the upsides and downsides of high-efficiency tires, compared to high-performance tires? I'm not familiar with the terms, in spite of having bought tires several times.
    - __alexs 4y ago
      high-efficiency tyres have less rolling resistance and as a result are usually made of a harder rubber. as a result they also have less grip but this is fine if you adjust your speeds to match the conditions appropriately. some of them have additives in the rubber to try and get some of the lost grip back.
      - redtexture 4y ago
        Distiction: Winter tires are made of a softer rubber compound, to be more flexible in winter termperatures. These softer winter tires wear very rapidly in summer temperatures, and experience a drive may have if they fail to change out their winter tires to the summer seasonal tires.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Half by what metric?
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Mass pm2.5 and pm10 emissions per vehicle-km.
      - arijun 4y ago
        That's a good point, but it might not be the whole story. It's possible that tailpipe emissions are worse for your health than small rubber particles from tires
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        That doesn't seem particularly relevant when some of the other things are highly poisonous? Why would you focus on that when the review is talking about studies showing health impacts and only mentions tires once, explaining that general environmental dust becomes "road dust" when kicked up by tires?
- OliverM 4y ago
  Isn't dust from tyre wear a major point of concern? E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dust-the-stealth-pollutant-becoming-a-huge-threat-to-ocean-life https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dus...
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    What’s the relationship between car speed vs. tire wear? What about weight? How much difference can be made by changing the road surface? Do the quieter types of road surface also reduce the amount of tire dust?
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Wear is inversely related to speed because the wear comes from acceleration, not from rolling at a steady speed. Starting and stopping and turning in urban driving wears tires more than cruising down a motorway.
      - Robotbeat 4y ago
        Rolling also incurs wear. Going at a constant speed still requires shear stress on the tires like acceleration does (to counter air resistance, etc). So reduction in air resistance can also help reduce tire wear. EV drivers typically brake a little more gradually to maximize regeneration compared to conventional braking. Having each wheel be driven by electric motors with careful traction control can minimize tire wear as well. If tire wear is the problem we’re trying to address, it might be a good idea to include a specific fee to address it. Related to tire composition and regular annual inspection of tires. That way wear can be minimized in an effective way. Or we develop tire tread whose wear particulates are not a major problem. Which brings up a point: we have little to no evidence that tire particulates DO pose an actual problem, unlike PAHs, which we do have evidence for. Rubber is somewhat biodegradable already. And the wear particles may be of a size distribution that isn’t so problematic. Detection or extrapolation of existence is not evidence for a problem. We are multiple levels removed from EVs theoretically having higher weight to actual known health problems here, and likely due to better control and lower rolling resistance, it’s likely EVs are superior.
- yabones 4y ago
  EVs aren't going to save the world, but they will save the auto industry for a few years.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    If the V for vehicle is taken literally, then they will do more good than just big BEV SUVs in cities designed around cars. Think delivery moped and ebike trikes, or commuter ebikes, trains and buses. Last mile delivery vehicles etc. But, if the alternative to the BEV SUV is an ICE SUV then they'll still help a lot, saving lots of money and many lives.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Basically no lefties/urbanites would’ve made that argument before Tesla made EVs viable and attractive to normies. Back in the “Who Killed the Electric Car” days, it would’ve been extremely odd for people with environmental concerns to be like that. EVs are a massive, massive improvement, and while I like improving stuff (or using alternatives) to reduce further downsides, I don’t think we should look a gift horse in the mouth, here.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      As a city-dweller whose main practical problems with cars are around pedestrian and cyclist safety, noise pollution, and the hostility of car-centric infrastructure to human life in general, this sounds a lot like "you'll take what we give you and be happy about it."
      - wongarsu 4y ago
        As a city-dweller, I'll be glad when the decline of ICE cars removes the loud sound of accelerating engines, and the reduction of PM2.5 particulates improves my health. Sure, it's not a cure-all, and more pedestrian areas, better bicycle infrastructure, more medium-density housing with walkable neighborhoods, and heat-pumps instead of burning oil or gas are still important issues. But just switching from ICE to electric engines is a cheap win that I'm glad to get as well.
- ehnto 4y ago
  I think weight of EVs is a "how long is a piece of string" discussion though. Which EV, and heavy compared to the average car, or compared to a feature equivalent ICE car? Currently large luxury EVs are in favor in the American market, but that'll probably change once smaller affordable EVs hit the market and fill out demand amongst the more common vehicle price points. There's also no shortage of truly behemoth ICE vehicles getting about, so I'm not sure it counts as a practical con for EV's just yet.
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    I have been arguing that we should be comparing EVs to their highest volume ICE counterparts in their class/tier of vehicle since that is going to be the most common upgrade path as EVs get more available and affordable. Additionally, we should look at TCO rather than MSRP for tiers since maintenance costs are so different. If comparing similar size/TCO vehicles with high volume, The lightest Model 3 weighs more than the heaviest Camrys and Accords and the lightest Model Y weighs more than the heaviest CR-Vs and Rav-4s. On top of that, Tesla is way ahead of most EVs on weight with the 3/Y. Similar range vehicles like the polestar 2 or the Ioniq 5 are really heavy by comparison. In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use it) is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were going to see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of vehicle as you switch to EV. If anything Americans buy up as the operating costs go down.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      > In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use it) is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were going to see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of vehicle as you switch to EV. EVs mean more power, more AWD, more cargo room than comparable ICE vehicles. More "capability", as you say. At the same time, the reduced range discourages going for a larger, bloated vehicle you don't need. I can definitely imagine a lot of the families that have a crossover / smaller SUV now deciding to go with a sedan like the model 3. It has all the cargo storage they need and has the power / AWD they are used to.
      - 4y ago
photochemsyn 4y ago
Looks like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the worst component in the particulates by several measures: > "Yu et al. [14] found that PAH-contaminated road dust in urban areas was associated with an elevated risk of cancer. They determined that the source of PAHs was a combination of biofuel and coal combustion and traffic engine emissions. Soltani et al. [12] reported high PAH concentrations in road dust near high-traffic roads. They concluded that both adults and children are vulnerable to the potential carcinogenic risk of road dust. In a meta-analysis, evidence was found of an association between PAHs and lung cancer [55]. Ramesh et al. [56] found PAHs to be related to colon cancer and breast cancer in humans, and to show high mutagenicity in laboratory animals." By far the largest source of PAHs is diesel fuel combustion, meaning the trucking industry (which should be the primary target for replacement by EVs). See: "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Flames, in Diesel Fuels, and in Diesel Emissions" (2005), NIST, @ sci-hub.se > "Diesel fuels are composed of thousands of hydrocarbon species mainly including straight-chain paraffins, naphthenes, monocyclic and polycyclic aromatic species, most with carbon numbers from 10 to 22, and some sulfur-bearing compounds. The actual distribution of species among these classes depends strongly on the refining process that is controlled in part by regional environmental regulations. The PAH species in diesel fuels represent about 1 to 3% by mass of the total hydrocarbon content. Of the numerous compounds present in diesel fuels only the PAH species are considered herein because of their direct participation in particle formation and their widely documented adverse health effects."
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  I cannot wait for a ten-year study on cancer rates once we get widespread EVs in the transportation sector. I predict a huge drop. And then there's other air pollution death costs that aren't cancer that affect breathing ability for the elderly and health compromised.
  - elric 4y ago
    Wouldn't count on it. EVs tend to be heavier, so we can expect more dust from tire wear and brake wear. Not to mention road wear. Roads, by the way, are frequently asphalted with the ash leftover after incinerating waste, which I suspect will contain a carcinogen or two of its own.
ge96 4y ago
Cody's Lab: it's free palladium
- justinator 4y ago
  Next week on Cody's Lab: what happens when I drink palladium?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    ChickenHole happens.
    - ge96 4y ago
      It is pretty neat how those plants can grow inside of those white containers. I wouldn't have thought the sun could get through it.
hinkley 4y ago
For any gardeners reading: The most recent wisdom on lead and other urban contaminants is that white vinegar removes as much and in some cases more surface contamination than so-called vegetable soap. Particularly in the case of lead which is soluble in acids. Additionally most lead in leafy greens are surface contamination, not bioaccumulation as widely reported. White vinegar is excessively cheap, even in food grade forms, and is good for laundry as well (especially hard water, or in the PNW where mildew on clothes is a struggle). You can find half gallons for under $4.
- Arrath 4y ago
  > (especially hard water, or in the PNW where mildew on clothes is a struggle) Born & raised in the PNW and I can't say I ever found this to be an issue. Mildew and moss growing on my car, sure. Can you expand on that any? I'm curious.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I’m assuming it’s for people who do not own a dryer or are slow to move clothing from washer to dryer.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      Bingo. Get distracted between wash-dry cycles and vinegar is your best friend. I actually learned that trick in college, while commiserating about having to rewash clothes 2x to get the funk out.
      - Arrath 4y ago
        Gotcha. Thanks!
      - AlecSchueler 4y ago
        And how do you get the vinegar smell out?
        4y ago
this15testing 4y ago
what a surprise, cars continue to sacrifice everything for individual convenience
edtechdev 4y ago
Chemicals from tires are killing off fish, too: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/acs-presspac-march-2-2022/substance-derived-from-tire-debris-is-toxic-to-two-trout-species.html https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/...
HPsquared 4y ago
I wonder how much this could be reduced by cleaning the road surface such that there is less dust to kick up? Say, pressure washing / brushing / vacuuming the surface. There are already automated street sweepers, could these reduce the amount of dust kicked up by cars?
- flybrand 4y ago
  Good idea. Another consideration is that you may remove the problem from roads and move it elsewhere. The fine particles could be problematic in water, collection could kick up more Dist, etc.
- matsemann 4y ago
  In Trondheim, Norway, this have been a big problem. The main road, Elgeseter Gate, is cleaned almost every night by a big "vacuum" that washes and sucks up the dust. Edit, found an article (Norwegian): https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/slik-loste-trondheim-problemene-med-bylufta-1.13332847 https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/slik-loste-trondheim-problemene... Basically they solved the issue with: washing the streets, reduce amount cars with spiked tires during winter, reduce speed of the road, switch to a more durable asphalt type, avoid using sand during winter.
- WebbWeaver 4y ago
  Just dont spray it with dixoin like they did in Times Beach, Missouri 1972-82. https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back-times-beach-disaster-nearly-40-years-later https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri#Crisis_at_Times_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri#Crisis_a...
- asdff 4y ago
  You'd have to clean everything within 1000 yards of the highway. It is kicked airborne and is blown all over the place. In California the effect is pronounced where it doesn't rain. You can wipe road dust off your window exteriors with a cloth and it will be black in one pass. Stucco buildings look dirty and brown before long due to the road dust accumulating in their rough surface.
MengerSponge 4y ago
The Idle [1] featured on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and I've used it ever since to absolutely horrify toxicologists. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idle
- zionic 4y ago
  Can I get a QRD?
  - tangjurine 4y ago
    https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/08/17/indianapolis-the-idle-tiny-park-off-cultural-trail-vandalized/8163853002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/08/17... >The Idle was completed in 2018, after Battista worked for years to convince city, state and national officials to OK the project. Even before it opened, it became a punchline on NPR's "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me" when a segment asked a caller to guess whether The Idle, a Karen Pence towel charm museum or a women's prisoner talent show were real. The caller didn't choose "The Idle."
    - olyjohn 4y ago
      Okay... but what's the joke about it? The Wikipedia article just says it's a small park that overlooks a highway. The article you linked says it was vandalized, and was once used as a joke on the radio show. Is a park in a city overlooking a freeway really that weird?
      - rtkwe 4y ago
        A park that happens to overlook a freeway isn't the weird. One built specifically to overlook a freeway is. The joke on the Wait Wait... segment is which of these 3 ridiculous sounds things is actually real.
Sporktacular 4y ago
This today on the effect of tyre dust specifically on animals: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dust-the-stealth-pollutant-becoming-a-huge-threat-to-ocean-life https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dus...
Panther34543 4y ago
I moved to NYC earlier this year, and particulate matter from roads and cars was a serious concern. I did significant research into relative pollutants and health outcomes in NYC, and found almost zero correlation. Lung cancer was a particular concern, but it seems occurrences aren't higher in the city by any statistically significant amount. I found that to be strange; cars are everywhere in the city and most individuals live within a dozen meters of a heavily trafficked road. If anyone has competing evidence, I'd love to read it.
- nikkwong 4y ago
  I've looked into this as well; and from my understanding the amount of physical activity New Yorkers undergo by walking everywhere may offset the detrimental effects of the city's pollution; leaving New Yorkers with an average life expectancy that mirrors (or may be a bit higher) than the rest of the nation. It goes to show you how important regular, several times per day, low intensity exercise may be for human health. Maybe also, the relative windiness of the city leads to less accumulation of road dust than you'd have in other areas? (Totally just conjecture).
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    I bet part of it is also that most of the traffic is actually moving quite slowly so you don't get nearly as much tire or brake wear dust in the pollutants.
- zahma 4y ago
  Which health concerns, though? It's not exactly easy to isolate cause and effect. I do not have comparable research into New York and pollution, but you won't convince me that it is safe to inhale elevated levels of PM2.5. That stuff goes straight into your blood and can transition the blood-brain barrier.[1] Moreover, our bodies did not evolve to eliminate combustion products and micron-sized scraps of rubber and asphalt. In this case where evidence is absent, it is more than prudent to assume the worst case: no amount of pollution is good for us. In the same vein, we know that poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are carcinogenic, but does that mean we do not eat charbroiled steak? Of course not, but par for the course would be smoking a cigarette and introducing a shitload more carcinogens directly into our blood. All of that is to say that we can probably tolerate and eliminate a low-level of exogenous pollutants entering our body, but sustained intake of pollution surely spells disaster. Then again, something's going to kill you, so pick your poison -- literally. (Not exactly the damning evidence you're looking for, but the study below asserts causality between exogenous particulate matter infiltrating the CNS and neurological and behavioral disorders, including Alzheimer's-like symptoms and cognitive dysfunction in adults and children alike.) 1-https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2117083119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2117083119
Decabytes 4y ago
From what I’ve learned about masks and air quality these past couple years, I feel like we should always be wearing a mask for a lot more things than are common. Like yard work and when any sort of dust is involved
- TylerE 4y ago
  Absolutely.
- jerlam 4y ago
  It boggles the mind when I see gardeners with leaf blowers not wearing any kind of respiratory protection.
cjameskeller 4y ago
As someone who lives in a region with gravel/"dirt" roads, I often wonder how they compare to paved roads in terms of overall effect (possibly more fuel usage, but not, itself, made from hydrocarbons; fuel usage associated with maintenance, etc.) and what the relative health effect of the rock-dust is compared with the tar-dust/gases...
- istjohn 4y ago
  Silicosis is no joke, and I imagine tires wear much faster, leaving toxic dust behind, so my bet would be on gravel roads being worse.
  - elmomle 4y ago
    Though presumably gravel roads limit development, keeping car traffic minimal.
bjourne 4y ago
It's apparent that almost no one commenting bothered to read the article because it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >because it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects From the abstract: "Road dust was found to have harmful effects on the human body, especially on the respiratory system." The entire conclusion: "This literature review found studies that reported the components of road dust particles to be associated with multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and cardiovascular system. The review also found a need for a complete risk assessment of the effects of road dust on human health. We recommend a thorough meta-analysis as well as a 4-step risk assessment process, including a multi-source epidemiological study on road dust particles to identify chronic health effects, with a particular focus on PM2.5 and the inclusion of sources in both urban and rural locations." Which of those led you to claim "it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects"?
  - bjourne 4y ago
    I wrote long-term for a reason. Maybe I'm misreading the review but none of the claims I found in it are about long-term adverse health effects.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      "They reported that insoluble lead compounds were associated with respiratory tract inflammation, which could lead to respiratory tract cancer" " lead and chromium compounds in road dust were present in human body fluids, indicating that exposure to road dust carries certain risks. Lead is known to be responsible for deficits in neurobehavioral and cognitive development in childhood" "Franklin et al. established an association between PM2.5 and cardiovascular mortality." "Bell et al. [25] found that elements of PM2.5 road dust particles such as aluminum and silicon were associated with low birth weight (LBW)" "Long-term exposure to aluminum was found to be associated with Alzheimer disease . Aluminum was found to be associated with respiratory allergies such as asthma in aluminum industry workers. The accumulation of aluminum can cause cardiac hypertrophy leading to cardiac failure." "the health risks of road dust and found that a higher risk was associated with the presence of lead, chromium, ... Chromium is known to be carcinogenic. In human subjects, chromium has been found to cause allergic reactions and respiratory distress after short-term exposure. Long-term exposure to chromium has been proven to be associated with lung cancer. " Increased incidence of: cancer, cognitive development deficits, increased cardiovascular mortality, low birth weight, Alzheimer's, caridac failure, lung cancer - these are not long term enough for you? These are not adverse health effects? There are so many more statements like this that I don't even care to list them all. Yet you claim others didn't read the article, then summarize it as having no "long-term" health risks. What in the paper supports your claim of no long term adverse health effects, compare to the (partial) list of items I quoted? Have a quote?

135 points by WebbWeaver 4y ago

Fortunately all of this is eliminated with EVs: much less brake dust (regenerative braking), no combustion, no catalytic converters, no oil leaks. All that's left is tire wear, potentially a little higher due to increased typical weight of EVs and faster acceleration.

jeffbee 4y ago
Tire dust is half of it, though. It can be reduced by shipping cars with high-efficiency tires instead of high-performance tires.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  What are the upsides and downsides of high-efficiency tires, compared to high-performance tires? I'm not familiar with the terms, in spite of having bought tires several times.
  - __alexs 4y ago
    high-efficiency tyres have less rolling resistance and as a result are usually made of a harder rubber. as a result they also have less grip but this is fine if you adjust your speeds to match the conditions appropriately. some of them have additives in the rubber to try and get some of the lost grip back.
    - redtexture 4y ago
      Distiction: Winter tires are made of a softer rubber compound, to be more flexible in winter termperatures. These softer winter tires wear very rapidly in summer temperatures, and experience a drive may have if they fail to change out their winter tires to the summer seasonal tires.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Half by what metric?
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Mass pm2.5 and pm10 emissions per vehicle-km.
    - arijun 4y ago
      That's a good point, but it might not be the whole story. It's possible that tailpipe emissions are worse for your health than small rubber particles from tires
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      That doesn't seem particularly relevant when some of the other things are highly poisonous? Why would you focus on that when the review is talking about studies showing health impacts and only mentions tires once, explaining that general environmental dust becomes "road dust" when kicked up by tires?
OliverM 4y ago
Isn't dust from tyre wear a major point of concern? E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dust-the-stealth-pollutant-becoming-a-huge-threat-to-ocean-life https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dus...
- jacobolus 4y ago
  What’s the relationship between car speed vs. tire wear? What about weight? How much difference can be made by changing the road surface? Do the quieter types of road surface also reduce the amount of tire dust?
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Wear is inversely related to speed because the wear comes from acceleration, not from rolling at a steady speed. Starting and stopping and turning in urban driving wears tires more than cruising down a motorway.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Rolling also incurs wear. Going at a constant speed still requires shear stress on the tires like acceleration does (to counter air resistance, etc). So reduction in air resistance can also help reduce tire wear. EV drivers typically brake a little more gradually to maximize regeneration compared to conventional braking. Having each wheel be driven by electric motors with careful traction control can minimize tire wear as well. If tire wear is the problem we’re trying to address, it might be a good idea to include a specific fee to address it. Related to tire composition and regular annual inspection of tires. That way wear can be minimized in an effective way. Or we develop tire tread whose wear particulates are not a major problem. Which brings up a point: we have little to no evidence that tire particulates DO pose an actual problem, unlike PAHs, which we do have evidence for. Rubber is somewhat biodegradable already. And the wear particles may be of a size distribution that isn’t so problematic. Detection or extrapolation of existence is not evidence for a problem. We are multiple levels removed from EVs theoretically having higher weight to actual known health problems here, and likely due to better control and lower rolling resistance, it’s likely EVs are superior.
yabones 4y ago
EVs aren't going to save the world, but they will save the auto industry for a few years.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  If the V for vehicle is taken literally, then they will do more good than just big BEV SUVs in cities designed around cars. Think delivery moped and ebike trikes, or commuter ebikes, trains and buses. Last mile delivery vehicles etc. But, if the alternative to the BEV SUV is an ICE SUV then they'll still help a lot, saving lots of money and many lives.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Basically no lefties/urbanites would’ve made that argument before Tesla made EVs viable and attractive to normies. Back in the “Who Killed the Electric Car” days, it would’ve been extremely odd for people with environmental concerns to be like that. EVs are a massive, massive improvement, and while I like improving stuff (or using alternatives) to reduce further downsides, I don’t think we should look a gift horse in the mouth, here.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    As a city-dweller whose main practical problems with cars are around pedestrian and cyclist safety, noise pollution, and the hostility of car-centric infrastructure to human life in general, this sounds a lot like "you'll take what we give you and be happy about it."
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      As a city-dweller, I'll be glad when the decline of ICE cars removes the loud sound of accelerating engines, and the reduction of PM2.5 particulates improves my health. Sure, it's not a cure-all, and more pedestrian areas, better bicycle infrastructure, more medium-density housing with walkable neighborhoods, and heat-pumps instead of burning oil or gas are still important issues. But just switching from ICE to electric engines is a cheap win that I'm glad to get as well.
ehnto 4y ago
I think weight of EVs is a "how long is a piece of string" discussion though. Which EV, and heavy compared to the average car, or compared to a feature equivalent ICE car? Currently large luxury EVs are in favor in the American market, but that'll probably change once smaller affordable EVs hit the market and fill out demand amongst the more common vehicle price points. There's also no shortage of truly behemoth ICE vehicles getting about, so I'm not sure it counts as a practical con for EV's just yet.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  I have been arguing that we should be comparing EVs to their highest volume ICE counterparts in their class/tier of vehicle since that is going to be the most common upgrade path as EVs get more available and affordable. Additionally, we should look at TCO rather than MSRP for tiers since maintenance costs are so different. If comparing similar size/TCO vehicles with high volume, The lightest Model 3 weighs more than the heaviest Camrys and Accords and the lightest Model Y weighs more than the heaviest CR-Vs and Rav-4s. On top of that, Tesla is way ahead of most EVs on weight with the 3/Y. Similar range vehicles like the polestar 2 or the Ioniq 5 are really heavy by comparison. In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use it) is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were going to see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of vehicle as you switch to EV. If anything Americans buy up as the operating costs go down.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use it) is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were going to see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of vehicle as you switch to EV. EVs mean more power, more AWD, more cargo room than comparable ICE vehicles. More "capability", as you say. At the same time, the reduced range discourages going for a larger, bloated vehicle you don't need. I can definitely imagine a lot of the families that have a crossover / smaller SUV now deciding to go with a sedan like the model 3. It has all the cargo storage they need and has the power / AWD they are used to.
    - 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago

Looks like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the worst component in the particulates by several measures: > "Yu et al. [14] found that PAH-contaminated road dust in urban areas was associated with an elevated risk of cancer. They determined that the source of PAHs was a combination of biofuel and coal combustion and traffic engine emissions. Soltani et al. [12] reported high PAH concentrations in road dust near high-traffic roads. They concluded that both adults and children are vulnerable to the potential carcinogenic risk of road dust. In a meta-analysis, evidence was found of an association between PAHs and lung cancer [55]. Ramesh et al. [56] found PAHs to be related to colon cancer and breast cancer in humans, and to show high mutagenicity in laboratory animals." By far the largest source of PAHs is diesel fuel combustion, meaning the trucking industry (which should be the primary target for replacement by EVs). See: "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Flames, in Diesel Fuels, and in Diesel Emissions" (2005), NIST, @ sci-hub.se > "Diesel fuels are composed of thousands of hydrocarbon species mainly including straight-chain paraffins, naphthenes, monocyclic and polycyclic aromatic species, most with carbon numbers from 10 to 22, and some sulfur-bearing compounds. The actual distribution of species among these classes depends strongly on the refining process that is controlled in part by regional environmental regulations. The PAH species in diesel fuels represent about 1 to 3% by mass of the total hydrocarbon content. Of the numerous compounds present in diesel fuels only the PAH species are considered herein because of their direct participation in particle formation and their widely documented adverse health effects."

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
I cannot wait for a ten-year study on cancer rates once we get widespread EVs in the transportation sector. I predict a huge drop. And then there's other air pollution death costs that aren't cancer that affect breathing ability for the elderly and health compromised.
- elric 4y ago
  Wouldn't count on it. EVs tend to be heavier, so we can expect more dust from tire wear and brake wear. Not to mention road wear. Roads, by the way, are frequently asphalted with the ash leftover after incinerating waste, which I suspect will contain a carcinogen or two of its own.

ge96 4y ago

Cody's Lab: it's free palladium

justinator 4y ago
Next week on Cody's Lab: what happens when I drink palladium?
- kube-system 4y ago
  ChickenHole happens.
  - ge96 4y ago
    It is pretty neat how those plants can grow inside of those white containers. I wouldn't have thought the sun could get through it.

hinkley 4y ago

For any gardeners reading: The most recent wisdom on lead and other urban contaminants is that white vinegar removes as much and in some cases more surface contamination than so-called vegetable soap. Particularly in the case of lead which is soluble in acids. Additionally most lead in leafy greens are surface contamination, not bioaccumulation as widely reported. White vinegar is excessively cheap, even in food grade forms, and is good for laundry as well (especially hard water, or in the PNW where mildew on clothes is a struggle). You can find half gallons for under $4.

Arrath 4y ago
> (especially hard water, or in the PNW where mildew on clothes is a struggle) Born & raised in the PNW and I can't say I ever found this to be an issue. Mildew and moss growing on my car, sure. Can you expand on that any? I'm curious.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  I’m assuming it’s for people who do not own a dryer or are slow to move clothing from washer to dryer.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Bingo. Get distracted between wash-dry cycles and vinegar is your best friend. I actually learned that trick in college, while commiserating about having to rewash clothes 2x to get the funk out.
    - Arrath 4y ago
      Gotcha. Thanks!
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      And how do you get the vinegar smell out?
      - 4y ago

this15testing 4y ago

what a surprise, cars continue to sacrifice everything for individual convenience

edtechdev 4y ago

Chemicals from tires are killing off fish, too: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/acs-presspac-march-2-2022/substance-derived-from-tire-debris-is-toxic-to-two-trout-species.html https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/...

HPsquared 4y ago

I wonder how much this could be reduced by cleaning the road surface such that there is less dust to kick up? Say, pressure washing / brushing / vacuuming the surface. There are already automated street sweepers, could these reduce the amount of dust kicked up by cars?

flybrand 4y ago
Good idea. Another consideration is that you may remove the problem from roads and move it elsewhere. The fine particles could be problematic in water, collection could kick up more Dist, etc.
matsemann 4y ago
In Trondheim, Norway, this have been a big problem. The main road, Elgeseter Gate, is cleaned almost every night by a big "vacuum" that washes and sucks up the dust. Edit, found an article (Norwegian): https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/slik-loste-trondheim-problemene-med-bylufta-1.13332847 https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/slik-loste-trondheim-problemene... Basically they solved the issue with: washing the streets, reduce amount cars with spiked tires during winter, reduce speed of the road, switch to a more durable asphalt type, avoid using sand during winter.
WebbWeaver 4y ago
Just dont spray it with dixoin like they did in Times Beach, Missouri 1972-82. https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back-times-beach-disaster-nearly-40-years-later https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri#Crisis_at_Times_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri#Crisis_a...
asdff 4y ago
You'd have to clean everything within 1000 yards of the highway. It is kicked airborne and is blown all over the place. In California the effect is pronounced where it doesn't rain. You can wipe road dust off your window exteriors with a cloth and it will be black in one pass. Stucco buildings look dirty and brown before long due to the road dust accumulating in their rough surface.

MengerSponge 4y ago

The Idle [1] featured on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and I've used it ever since to absolutely horrify toxicologists. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idle

zionic 4y ago
Can I get a QRD?
- tangjurine 4y ago
  https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/08/17/indianapolis-the-idle-tiny-park-off-cultural-trail-vandalized/8163853002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/08/17... >The Idle was completed in 2018, after Battista worked for years to convince city, state and national officials to OK the project. Even before it opened, it became a punchline on NPR's "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me" when a segment asked a caller to guess whether The Idle, a Karen Pence towel charm museum or a women's prisoner talent show were real. The caller didn't choose "The Idle."
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    Okay... but what's the joke about it? The Wikipedia article just says it's a small park that overlooks a highway. The article you linked says it was vandalized, and was once used as a joke on the radio show. Is a park in a city overlooking a freeway really that weird?
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      A park that happens to overlook a freeway isn't the weird. One built specifically to overlook a freeway is. The joke on the Wait Wait... segment is which of these 3 ridiculous sounds things is actually real.

Sporktacular 4y ago

This today on the effect of tyre dust specifically on animals: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dust-the-stealth-pollutant-becoming-a-huge-threat-to-ocean-life https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dus...

Panther34543 4y ago

I moved to NYC earlier this year, and particulate matter from roads and cars was a serious concern. I did significant research into relative pollutants and health outcomes in NYC, and found almost zero correlation. Lung cancer was a particular concern, but it seems occurrences aren't higher in the city by any statistically significant amount. I found that to be strange; cars are everywhere in the city and most individuals live within a dozen meters of a heavily trafficked road. If anyone has competing evidence, I'd love to read it.

nikkwong 4y ago
I've looked into this as well; and from my understanding the amount of physical activity New Yorkers undergo by walking everywhere may offset the detrimental effects of the city's pollution; leaving New Yorkers with an average life expectancy that mirrors (or may be a bit higher) than the rest of the nation. It goes to show you how important regular, several times per day, low intensity exercise may be for human health. Maybe also, the relative windiness of the city leads to less accumulation of road dust than you'd have in other areas? (Totally just conjecture).
- rtkwe 4y ago
  I bet part of it is also that most of the traffic is actually moving quite slowly so you don't get nearly as much tire or brake wear dust in the pollutants.
zahma 4y ago
Which health concerns, though? It's not exactly easy to isolate cause and effect. I do not have comparable research into New York and pollution, but you won't convince me that it is safe to inhale elevated levels of PM2.5. That stuff goes straight into your blood and can transition the blood-brain barrier.[1] Moreover, our bodies did not evolve to eliminate combustion products and micron-sized scraps of rubber and asphalt. In this case where evidence is absent, it is more than prudent to assume the worst case: no amount of pollution is good for us. In the same vein, we know that poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are carcinogenic, but does that mean we do not eat charbroiled steak? Of course not, but par for the course would be smoking a cigarette and introducing a shitload more carcinogens directly into our blood. All of that is to say that we can probably tolerate and eliminate a low-level of exogenous pollutants entering our body, but sustained intake of pollution surely spells disaster. Then again, something's going to kill you, so pick your poison -- literally. (Not exactly the damning evidence you're looking for, but the study below asserts causality between exogenous particulate matter infiltrating the CNS and neurological and behavioral disorders, including Alzheimer's-like symptoms and cognitive dysfunction in adults and children alike.) 1-https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2117083119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2117083119

Decabytes 4y ago

From what I’ve learned about masks and air quality these past couple years, I feel like we should always be wearing a mask for a lot more things than are common. Like yard work and when any sort of dust is involved

TylerE 4y ago
Absolutely.
jerlam 4y ago
It boggles the mind when I see gardeners with leaf blowers not wearing any kind of respiratory protection.

cjameskeller 4y ago

As someone who lives in a region with gravel/"dirt" roads, I often wonder how they compare to paved roads in terms of overall effect (possibly more fuel usage, but not, itself, made from hydrocarbons; fuel usage associated with maintenance, etc.) and what the relative health effect of the rock-dust is compared with the tar-dust/gases...

istjohn 4y ago
Silicosis is no joke, and I imagine tires wear much faster, leaving toxic dust behind, so my bet would be on gravel roads being worse.
- elmomle 4y ago
  Though presumably gravel roads limit development, keeping car traffic minimal.

bjourne 4y ago

It's apparent that almost no one commenting bothered to read the article because it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>because it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects From the abstract: "Road dust was found to have harmful effects on the human body, especially on the respiratory system." The entire conclusion: "This literature review found studies that reported the components of road dust particles to be associated with multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and cardiovascular system. The review also found a need for a complete risk assessment of the effects of road dust on human health. We recommend a thorough meta-analysis as well as a 4-step risk assessment process, including a multi-source epidemiological study on road dust particles to identify chronic health effects, with a particular focus on PM2.5 and the inclusion of sources in both urban and rural locations." Which of those led you to claim "it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects"?
- bjourne 4y ago
  I wrote long-term for a reason. Maybe I'm misreading the review but none of the claims I found in it are about long-term adverse health effects.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    "They reported that insoluble lead compounds were associated with respiratory tract inflammation, which could lead to respiratory tract cancer" " lead and chromium compounds in road dust were present in human body fluids, indicating that exposure to road dust carries certain risks. Lead is known to be responsible for deficits in neurobehavioral and cognitive development in childhood" "Franklin et al. established an association between PM2.5 and cardiovascular mortality." "Bell et al. [25] found that elements of PM2.5 road dust particles such as aluminum and silicon were associated with low birth weight (LBW)" "Long-term exposure to aluminum was found to be associated with Alzheimer disease . Aluminum was found to be associated with respiratory allergies such as asthma in aluminum industry workers. The accumulation of aluminum can cause cardiac hypertrophy leading to cardiac failure." "the health risks of road dust and found that a higher risk was associated with the presence of lead, chromium, ... Chromium is known to be carcinogenic. In human subjects, chromium has been found to cause allergic reactions and respiratory distress after short-term exposure. Long-term exposure to chromium has been proven to be associated with lung cancer. " Increased incidence of: cancer, cognitive development deficits, increased cardiovascular mortality, low birth weight, Alzheimer's, caridac failure, lung cancer - these are not long term enough for you? These are not adverse health effects? There are so many more statements like this that I don't even care to list them all. Yet you claim others didn't read the article, then summarize it as having no "long-term" health risks. What in the paper supports your claim of no long term adverse health effects, compare to the (partial) list of items I quoted? Have a quote?