6 ms·

Looks like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the worst component in the particulates by several measures: > "Yu et al. [14] found that PAH-contam

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.
  - brandmeyer 4y ago
    > so we can expect more dust from ... brake wear. Nonsense. EVs and hybrids leverage regeneration for nearly all of their lifetime braking energy use. Its commonplace for EV brake pads to last the life of the vehicle today. Exceptions exist, but those are for particularly hard-braking drivers. Our Prius ran 200k miles on the factory brakes, for example.
  - manmal 4y ago
    Tire particulates tend to be bigger and heavier than those from fuel, settling on the ground rather quickly. Brakes are only seldomly activated in EVs, so much so that rust is an issue.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    > ash leftover after incinerating waste This 'fly ash' and 'bottom ash' are both so toxic that regulations don't allow putting them in landfill. So instead we mix them in with concrete and asphalt in roads. I'm sure it sounded like a good plan to whoever was going to have to pay to deal with the toxic waste otherwise...
- asdff 4y ago
  Honestly the big air pollution wins for cars happened already with the clean air act, unleaded gas, and catalytic converters. The big sources of pollution that your average ice car emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent the brakes. Both of these are still worn down in heavier EVs. At the end of the day the pattern of everyone taking a 5000lb vehicle that you replace every couple years to go anywhere at all is the thing that isn't sustainable, not as much the particular energy source for that vehicle.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Presumably most EVs have regenerative brakes. I almost never use brakes on my Tesla (only for urgent stops). > The big sources of pollution that your average ice car emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent the brakes. I'm not sure in what sense these are the "big" sources, but it's not by mass. An ICE car emits like 30kg of carbon per 100 miles while an entire car tire weighs only 12kg. > At the end of the day the pattern of everyone taking a 5000lb vehicle that you replace every couple years to go anywhere at all is the thing that isn't sustainable, not as much the particular energy source for that vehicle. Of course, most people don't replace their vehicle every couple of years, which suggests that we can decouple the "replace every couple of years" from the "vehicle" bit. In other words, driving (even when citing the weight of the vehicle, as though it has any bearing on the sustainability) is plenty sustainable, but what isn't sustainable is the same thing that plagues every aspect of American (and to a lesser degree, "western") life: consumerism, throw-away culture, importing cheap plastic garbage from China/etc, etc. Nothing special about driving in this regard.
    - jeromegv 4y ago
      Parent is not referring to the actual weight of the tire, but to the particles emitted by the tires as you drive your electric car. Electric cars are heavier than ICE cars (due to the battery) so they tend to apply more weight on those tires as well, which increases those particles https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-batteries-evs-boost-particulate-emissions-from-tires-study https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-batterie... Not trying to make a case against electric cars, but just wanted to explain that it's not just the 12kg of your tires that are the issue.
- m463 4y ago
  I suspect not only removing exhaust emissions, but also reducing brake dust due to regenerative braking.
zip1234 4y ago
Don't forget about the heavy metals in tire dust.
- klipt 4y ago
  Isn't it just wonderful how many children's playgrounds are carpeted with recycled tire rubber?
  - tristor 4y ago
    Actually, yes. This is a viable and relatively safe way to recycle tires, which otherwise would be a horrifying ecological disaster (most non-recycled tires end up going into caches that end up catching fire, tire fires are some of the worst things for the environment). During the processing of tire rubber to be used as playground mulch, it's cleaned, and most of the worst contaminates are removed. The worst thing in the recycled tires isn't heavy metals it's carbon black, and in both cases it shouldn't matter unless your children are eating the tire mulch.
    - No1 4y ago
      No, it's not a good idea to dispose of toxic waste on playgrounds. The stuff flakes apart over time and degrades in sunlight, and generally ends up everywhere in the vicinity of the TDP padding. Soccer goalies are just the canary in the coalmine. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-cancer-study-profile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-cancer...
      - asdff 4y ago
        Every turf field I've stood upon has had a strong offgassing smell too. That can't be great spending hours inhaling plastic fumes playing sports either.
      - Pokepokalypse 4y ago
        So how about that pressure-treated lumber that they make the playground equipment with? Filled with Arsenic.

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.
- brandmeyer 4y ago
  > so we can expect more dust from ... brake wear. Nonsense. EVs and hybrids leverage regeneration for nearly all of their lifetime braking energy use. Its commonplace for EV brake pads to last the life of the vehicle today. Exceptions exist, but those are for particularly hard-braking drivers. Our Prius ran 200k miles on the factory brakes, for example.
- manmal 4y ago
  Tire particulates tend to be bigger and heavier than those from fuel, settling on the ground rather quickly. Brakes are only seldomly activated in EVs, so much so that rust is an issue.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  > ash leftover after incinerating waste This 'fly ash' and 'bottom ash' are both so toxic that regulations don't allow putting them in landfill. So instead we mix them in with concrete and asphalt in roads. I'm sure it sounded like a good plan to whoever was going to have to pay to deal with the toxic waste otherwise...
asdff 4y ago
Honestly the big air pollution wins for cars happened already with the clean air act, unleaded gas, and catalytic converters. The big sources of pollution that your average ice car emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent the brakes. Both of these are still worn down in heavier EVs. At the end of the day the pattern of everyone taking a 5000lb vehicle that you replace every couple years to go anywhere at all is the thing that isn't sustainable, not as much the particular energy source for that vehicle.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Presumably most EVs have regenerative brakes. I almost never use brakes on my Tesla (only for urgent stops). > The big sources of pollution that your average ice car emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent the brakes. I'm not sure in what sense these are the "big" sources, but it's not by mass. An ICE car emits like 30kg of carbon per 100 miles while an entire car tire weighs only 12kg. > At the end of the day the pattern of everyone taking a 5000lb vehicle that you replace every couple years to go anywhere at all is the thing that isn't sustainable, not as much the particular energy source for that vehicle. Of course, most people don't replace their vehicle every couple of years, which suggests that we can decouple the "replace every couple of years" from the "vehicle" bit. In other words, driving (even when citing the weight of the vehicle, as though it has any bearing on the sustainability) is plenty sustainable, but what isn't sustainable is the same thing that plagues every aspect of American (and to a lesser degree, "western") life: consumerism, throw-away culture, importing cheap plastic garbage from China/etc, etc. Nothing special about driving in this regard.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    Parent is not referring to the actual weight of the tire, but to the particles emitted by the tires as you drive your electric car. Electric cars are heavier than ICE cars (due to the battery) so they tend to apply more weight on those tires as well, which increases those particles https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-batteries-evs-boost-particulate-emissions-from-tires-study https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-batterie... Not trying to make a case against electric cars, but just wanted to explain that it's not just the 12kg of your tires that are the issue.
m463 4y ago
I suspect not only removing exhaust emissions, but also reducing brake dust due to regenerative braking.

zip1234 4y ago

Don't forget about the heavy metals in tire dust.

klipt 4y ago
Isn't it just wonderful how many children's playgrounds are carpeted with recycled tire rubber?
- tristor 4y ago
  Actually, yes. This is a viable and relatively safe way to recycle tires, which otherwise would be a horrifying ecological disaster (most non-recycled tires end up going into caches that end up catching fire, tire fires are some of the worst things for the environment). During the processing of tire rubber to be used as playground mulch, it's cleaned, and most of the worst contaminates are removed. The worst thing in the recycled tires isn't heavy metals it's carbon black, and in both cases it shouldn't matter unless your children are eating the tire mulch.
  - No1 4y ago
    No, it's not a good idea to dispose of toxic waste on playgrounds. The stuff flakes apart over time and degrades in sunlight, and generally ends up everywhere in the vicinity of the TDP padding. Soccer goalies are just the canary in the coalmine. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-cancer-study-profile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-cancer...
    - asdff 4y ago
      Every turf field I've stood upon has had a strong offgassing smell too. That can't be great spending hours inhaling plastic fumes playing sports either.
    - Pokepokalypse 4y ago
      So how about that pressure-treated lumber that they make the playground equipment with? Filled with Arsenic.