The pressure group Clean Air Auckland is circulating a petition which reads
as follows:
"Petition for the Introduction of Vehicle Emissions Controls and Cleaner
Fuel
"To Hon Judith Tizard, Minister for Auckland
"The petition of Clean Air Auckland and those undersigned respectfully
submit that given the proven connection between air pollution and adverse
health effects the Government needs to take action, and
· Introduce vehicle emission standards;
· Introduce mandatory vehicle emissions testing as part of the warrant of
fitness (WOF); and
· Require cleaner fuels."
>> If anyone would like copies of the petition form to pass around, please
email me. Signed copies need to be returned by 28 July 2003. <<
The associated fact sheet reads:
Clean the Air - Live Longer!
Air pollution from vehicle emissions is a serious health hazard in Auckland.
Have you ever wondered if breathing in that big cloud of fumes coming out of
a car exhaust might harm you? Well it does! We, Clean Air Auckland, are
concerned about the lack of control of vehicle emissions and the poor fuel
quality and we want the Government to introduce legislation to clean up the
air.
Fact Sheet
Compiled by Clean Air Auckland*
· It is estimated that about 400 New Zealanders die each year from air
pollution and almost half of these deaths can be attributed to vehicle
emissions; that is more than the road toll;
· the following health problems can be attributed to vehicle emissions:
breathing difficulties, headaches, learning disabilities in children,
drowsiness, and cancer;
· many Aucklanders suffer from diseases of the upper respiratory system,
such as asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution;
· 50% of harmful emissions are caused by 10% of vehicles (results of a study
of 40,000 vehicles in Auckland);
· 80% of the Auckland region's air pollution is caused by motor vehicle
emissions;
· a poorly maintained vehicle can release ten times more pollution than a
well maintained vehicle;
· in other countries, regular vehicle emissions tests for the WOF are
standard; even developing countries like Brazil have emission standards;
· inner Auckland air pollution regularly exceeds World Health Organization
standards for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide;
· filters for diesel powered vehicles require low sulphur fuel to work
properly; and
· some people buy a car and take off the catalytic converter, which filters
out a lot of toxic fumes - it should be illegal to do so.
Something needs to be done now to stop people from suffering health effects
just from walking around in our city and breathing! Ask your Government to
clean the air: sign our petition for the introduction of vehicle emission
controls and cleaner fuel.
*For further information feel free to talk to us:
e-mail us at cleanairauckland@no-spam or phone (09) 845-5917.
I'm in the process of buying a big arse diesel truck that runs fine but
because it's diesel I guess I'm going to get a bit of shit from idiots with
nothing better to do...
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0bef6e@no-spam
> Sue Bilstein says...
> > The pressure group Clean Air Auckland is circulating a petition which
reads
> > as follows:
> >
> Snip
> >
> > The associated fact sheet reads:
>
> Fact sheet? What a friggin laff that would be. This arrogant and
> inaccurate propaganda is an insult to anyone with a brain.
> >
>
> > Fact Sheet
> > Compiled by Clean Air Auckland*
> > · It is estimated that about 400 New Zealanders die each year from air
> > pollution and almost half of these deaths can be attributed to vehicle
> > emissions; that is more than the road toll;
>
> NBR
> Lobbies use flawed statistics to woo public
> Nick Smith
>
> Forget lies and damned lies millions of taxpayers' dollars are
> being spent promoting suspect statistics. Gilding the statistical
> lily in the name of public good has become a million-dollar
> industry, with health and transport ministry campaigns yesterday
> fingered as prime offenders.
>
> A transport report claiming nearly 400 premature deaths a year as
> a direct result of vehicle emissions has aattracted scorn from
> university boffins.
> Christchurch medical school associate professor of biostatistics
> Chris Frampton described the claimed death rates as "utter bumf."
> Dr Frampton said the advertising campaigns ignored the
> uncertainty inherent in statistical models based on observational
> studies.
>
> Auckland medical statistician Dr. Patricia Metcalf said the
> transport advertising campaign was "not telling the truth" and
> agreed the advertising campaign was an offence against
> intellectual honesty. Dr Metcalf said she was trying to find the
> initial report but the ministry statements about air pollution
> mortality were "numbers plucked out of the air."
>
>
> > · the following health problems can be attributed to vehicle emissions:
> > breathing difficulties, headaches, learning disabilities in children,
> > drowsiness, and cancer;
> > · many Aucklanders suffer from diseases of the upper respiratory system,
> > such as asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution;
>
> EPA report 1986
>
> In 1986 the EPA concluded that reported effects on the incidence
> of acute respiratory illness and on physician, emergency room,
> and hospital visits are not clearly related with acute exposure
> to ambient ozone or oxidants and, therefore, are not useful for
> deriving health effects criteria for standard-setting purposes.
> Likewise, no convincing association has been demonstrated between
> daily mortality and daily oxidant concentrations; rather, the
> effect correlates most closely with elevated temperatures.
>
>
> > · 50% of harmful emissions are caused by 10% of vehicles (results of a
study
> > of 40,000 vehicles in Auckland);
> > · 80% of the Auckland region's air pollution is caused by motor vehicle
> > emissions;
> > · a poorly maintained vehicle can release ten times more pollution than
a
> > well maintained vehicle;
> > · in other countries, regular vehicle emissions tests for the WOF are
> > standard; even developing countries like Brazil have emission standards;
> > · inner Auckland air pollution regularly exceeds World Health
Organization
> > standards for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide;
> > · filters for diesel powered vehicles require low sulphur fuel to work
> > properly; and
> > · some people buy a car and take off the catalytic converter, which
filters
> > out a lot of toxic fumes - it should be illegal to do so.
>
> ARC cooks the books on air pollution
>
> 19.08.2002
> By OWEN McSHANE
> Aucklanders are puzzled. The Auckland Regional Council tells us
> that Auckland's air is polluted - filthier than the air of London
> and New York.
>
> Many of us do not believe it. How come the regional council's
> figures are so contrary to common sense? The answer is simple.
> They cooked the books.
>
> And they have persuaded others, including the Parliamentary
> Commissioner for the Environment. A graph in his latest report,
> Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand,
> shows Auckland's levels of carbon monoxide from motor vehicles,
> from 1992 to 1998, significantly exceed international guidelines.
>
> The commentary below the graph explains: "In Auckland, carbon
> monoxide concentrations are higher than in London and other
> larger cities".
>
> The graph is sourced from a paper by G.W. Fischer, of the
> National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (Niwa). But on the
> first page, Mr Fischer explains that: "The data are also only
> peak values. That is, the numbers represent the highest value
> found anywhere in the city, at any time of year."
>
> In reality, the median value for levels of carbon monoxide over
> the whole five-year period is only about 7 per cent of the
> international guidelines. And this average is from the most
> polluted site in the region.
>
> Mr Fischer's paper concludes: "New Zealand is still a very clean
> place, especially in comparison to other countries."
>
> Yet the regional council insists that Auckland is more polluted
> than London.
>
> When someone compares Auckland with London, we first have to ask
> "what is Auckland?" and "what is London?"
>
> If you tell me that Manhattan Island has a higher residential
> density than Los Angeles City, you are right. But if you then
> tell me that the New York metropolitan region has a higher
> density than greater Los Angeles, you are wrong. Los Angeles is a
> very high-density region.
>
> So what Auckland is the regional council measuring? Wellsford?
> Pukekohe? Piha?
>
> They are drawing on three highly polluted monitoring sites -
> Queen St, Khyber Pass Rd and some short-term readings in Dominion
> Rd.
>
> The regional council's Queen St monitor used to be sited in the
> middle of a Queen St block, near Tisdalls sports store. But a few
> years ago, it was moved across the road, close to traffic lights
> at Wyndham St.
>
> The peak readings naturally increased and the regional council
> tells us that carbon monoxide in Auckland is increasing.
>
> These peaks occur from 11pm to 3am on Fridays and Saturdays, when
> there are few people around. What causes the high readings?
>
> First, Queen St runs down a gully, which is further contained by
> a canyon of high buildings. Auckland's nights are comparatively
> calm. And the midnight hours are when the boy racers come out to
> play. So if Mayor John Banks gets the boy racers out of Queen St,
> the street's air pollution problems will probably disappear with
> them.
>
> The other dirty site is in Khyber Pass. Niwa's office is on the
> corner of Mountain Rd and its sampling pipe hangs out the window,
> sucking up air from the traffic lights.
>
> A couple of London's many monitoring sites appear to carry
> similar traffic levels to Queen St and Khyber Pass. Sure enough,
> the highest level of nitrogen dioxide (the other major exhaust
> pollutant) at Camden peaks at 207g/m3, which is lower than at
> Khyber Pass, which peaks at 277g/m3.
>
> On the other hand, the level at Tower Hamlets (294g/m3) is higher
> than at Khyber Pass. The average levels at both London sites
> (Camden 71g/m3 and Tower Hamlets 74g/m3) are higher than at
> Khyber Pass, at only 58g/m3.
>
> The recommended ambient guideline for nitrogen dioxide is way up
> there at 200g/m3. So our average reading of 58g/m3 at Khyber Pass
> suggests most Aucklanders have little to worry about - except
> their bureaucrats.
>
> At the congested monitoring sites in London, traffic is mostly
> idling or moving slowly. There are no nearby traffic lights and
> these London sites are flat.
>
> When the traffic lights at the Khyber Pass site turn green, the
> traffic has to accelerate and climb uphill, which increases the
> load on the engine and produces more pollution right below Niwa's
> intake pipe.
>
> It is not surprising that this monitoring site records such high
> levels of exhaust pollution.
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0bef6e@no-spam
> Sue Bilstein says...
> > The pressure group Clean Air Auckland is circulating a petition which
reads
> > as follows:
> >
> Snip
> >
> > The associated fact sheet reads:
>
> Fact sheet? What a friggin laff that would be. This arrogant and
> inaccurate propaganda is an insult to anyone with a brain.
so i take it pnky doos your not offended ?
Dan says...
> I'm in the process of buying a big arse diesel truck that runs fine but
> because it's diesel I guess I'm going to get a bit of shit from idiots with
> nothing better to do...
If you lie down Dan, people will walk over you.
Especially misguided zealots and fools like this lot. Their good
intentions give them the right to commit any kind of moral
transgression. Lies and propaganda are just the tip of the
iceberg.
>
>
>
> "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3f0bef6e@no-spam
> > Sue Bilstein says...
> > > The pressure group Clean Air Auckland is circulating a petition which
> reads
> > > as follows:
> > >
> > Snip
> > >
> > > The associated fact sheet reads:
> >
> > Fact sheet? What a friggin laff that would be. This arrogant and
> > inaccurate propaganda is an insult to anyone with a brain.
> > >
> >
> > > Fact Sheet
> > > Compiled by Clean Air Auckland*
> > > · It is estimated that about 400 New Zealanders die each year from air
> > > pollution and almost half of these deaths can be attributed to vehicle
> > > emissions; that is more than the road toll;
> >
> > NBR
> > Lobbies use flawed statistics to woo public
> > Nick Smith
> >
> > Forget lies and damned lies millions of taxpayers' dollars are
> > being spent promoting suspect statistics. Gilding the statistical
> > lily in the name of public good has become a million-dollar
> > industry, with health and transport ministry campaigns yesterday
> > fingered as prime offenders.
> >
> > A transport report claiming nearly 400 premature deaths a year as
> > a direct result of vehicle emissions has aattracted scorn from
> > university boffins.
> > Christchurch medical school associate professor of biostatistics
> > Chris Frampton described the claimed death rates as "utter bumf."
> > Dr Frampton said the advertising campaigns ignored the
> > uncertainty inherent in statistical models based on observational
> > studies.
> >
> > Auckland medical statistician Dr. Patricia Metcalf said the
> > transport advertising campaign was "not telling the truth" and
> > agreed the advertising campaign was an offence against
> > intellectual honesty. Dr Metcalf said she was trying to find the
> > initial report but the ministry statements about air pollution
> > mortality were "numbers plucked out of the air."
> >
> >
> > > · the following health problems can be attributed to vehicle emissions:
> > > breathing difficulties, headaches, learning disabilities in children,
> > > drowsiness, and cancer;
> > > · many Aucklanders suffer from diseases of the upper respiratory system,
> > > such as asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution;
> >
> > EPA report 1986
> >
> > In 1986 the EPA concluded that reported effects on the incidence
> > of acute respiratory illness and on physician, emergency room,
> > and hospital visits are not clearly related with acute exposure
> > to ambient ozone or oxidants and, therefore, are not useful for
> > deriving health effects criteria for standard-setting purposes.
> > Likewise, no convincing association has been demonstrated between
> > daily mortality and daily oxidant concentrations; rather, the
> > effect correlates most closely with elevated temperatures.
> >
> >
> > > · 50% of harmful emissions are caused by 10% of vehicles (results of a
> study
> > > of 40,000 vehicles in Auckland);
> > > · 80% of the Auckland region's air pollution is caused by motor vehicle
> > > emissions;
> > > · a poorly maintained vehicle can release ten times more pollution than
> a
> > > well maintained vehicle;
> > > · in other countries, regular vehicle emissions tests for the WOF are
> > > standard; even developing countries like Brazil have emission standards;
> > > · inner Auckland air pollution regularly exceeds World Health
> Organization
> > > standards for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide;
> > > · filters for diesel powered vehicles require low sulphur fuel to work
> > > properly; and
> > > · some people buy a car and take off the catalytic converter, which
> filters
> > > out a lot of toxic fumes - it should be illegal to do so.
> >
> > ARC cooks the books on air pollution
> >
> > 19.08.2002
> > By OWEN McSHANE
> > Aucklanders are puzzled. The Auckland Regional Council tells us
> > that Auckland's air is polluted - filthier than the air of London
> > and New York.
> >
> > Many of us do not believe it. How come the regional council's
> > figures are so contrary to common sense? The answer is simple.
> > They cooked the books.
> >
> > And they have persuaded others, including the Parliamentary
> > Commissioner for the Environment. A graph in his latest report,
> > Creating Our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand,
> > shows Auckland's levels of carbon monoxide from motor vehicles,
> > from 1992 to 1998, significantly exceed international guidelines.
> >
> > The commentary below the graph explains: "In Auckland, carbon
> > monoxide concentrations are higher than in London and other
> > larger cities".
> >
> > The graph is sourced from a paper by G.W. Fischer, of the
> > National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (Niwa). But on the
> > first page, Mr Fischer explains that: "The data are also only
> > peak values. That is, the numbers represent the highest value
> > found anywhere in the city, at any time of year."
> >
> > In reality, the median value for levels of carbon monoxide over
> > the whole five-year period is only about 7 per cent of the
> > international guidelines. And this average is from the most
> > polluted site in the region.
> >
> > Mr Fischer's paper concludes: "New Zealand is still a very clean
> > place, especially in comparison to other countries."
> >
> > Yet the regional council insists that Auckland is more polluted
> > than London.
> >
> > When someone compares Auckland with London, we first have to ask
> > "what is Auckland?" and "what is London?"
> >
> > If you tell me that Manhattan Island has a higher residential
> > density than Los Angeles City, you are right. But if you then
> > tell me that the New York metropolitan region has a higher
> > density than greater Los Angeles, you are wrong. Los Angeles is a
> > very high-density region.
> >
> > So what Auckland is the regional council measuring? Wellsford?
> > Pukekohe? Piha?
> >
> > They are drawing on three highly polluted monitoring sites -
> > Queen St, Khyber Pass Rd and some short-term readings in Dominion
> > Rd.
> >
> > The regional council's Queen St monitor used to be sited in the
> > middle of a Queen St block, near Tisdalls sports store. But a few
> > years ago, it was moved across the road, close to traffic lights
> > at Wyndham St.
> >
> > The peak readings naturally increased and the regional council
> > tells us that carbon monoxide in Auckland is increasing.
> >
> > These peaks occur from 11pm to 3am on Fridays and Saturdays, when
> > there are few people around. What causes the high readings?
> >
> > First, Queen St runs down a gully, which is further contained by
> > a canyon of high buildings. Auckland's nights are comparatively
> > calm. And the midnight hours are when the boy racers come out to
> > play. So if Mayor John Banks gets the boy racers out of Queen St,
> > the street's air pollution problems will probably disappear with
> > them.
> >
> > The other dirty site is in Khyber Pass. Niwa's office is on the
> > corner of Mountain Rd and its sampling pipe hangs out the window,
> > sucking up air from the traffic lights.
> >
> > A couple of London's many monitoring sites appear to carry
> > similar traffic levels to Queen St and Khyber Pass. Sure enough,
> > the highest level of nitrogen dioxide (the other major exhaust
> > pollutant) at Camden peaks at 207g/m3, which is lower than at
> > Khyber Pass, which peaks at 277g/m3.
> >
> > On the other hand, the level at Tower Hamlets (294g/m3) is higher
> > than at Khyber Pass. The average levels at both London sites
> > (Camden 71g/m3 and Tower Hamlets 74g/m3) are higher than at
> > Khyber Pass, at only 58g/m3.
> >
> > The recommended ambient guideline for nitrogen dioxide is way up
> > there at 200g/m3. So our average reading of 58g/m3 at Khyber Pass
> > suggests most Aucklanders have little to worry about - except
> > their bureaucrats.
> >
> > At the congested monitoring sites in London, traffic is mostly
> > idling or moving slowly. There are no nearby traffic lights and
> > these London sites are flat.
> >
> > When the traffic lights at the Khyber Pass site turn green, the
> > traffic has to accelerate and climb uphill, which increases the
> > load on the engine and produces more pollution right below Niwa's
> > intake pipe.
> >
> > It is not surprising that this monitoring site records such high
> > levels of exhaust pollution.
> >
> > --
> > Redbaiter
> > In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
In nz.general Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> Dan says...
>> I'm in the process of buying a big arse diesel truck that runs fine but
>> because it's diesel I guess I'm going to get a bit of shit from idiots with
>> nothing better to do...
> If you lie down Dan, people will walk over you.
> Especially misguided zealots and fools like this lot. Their good
> intentions give them the right to commit any kind of moral
> transgression. Lies and propaganda are just the tip of the
> iceberg.
I suppose we can take another route.
Well my eyes have been stinging less and breathing less affected since
lower sulphur diesel has been being sold in Christchurch, and vehicles
have been tuned a bit better, too.
How I used to shudder at the `Please let the bus go first' signs on the
back of them.
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0bef6e@no-spam
> Sue Bilstein says...
>
> > Fact Sheet
> > Compiled by Clean Air Auckland*
> > · It is estimated that about 400 New Zealanders die each year from air
> > pollution and almost half of these deaths can be attributed to vehicle
> > emissions; that is more than the road toll;
>
> NBR
> Lobbies use flawed statistics to woo public
> Nick Smith
...
> A transport report claiming nearly 400 premature deaths a year as
> a direct result of vehicle emissions has aattracted scorn from
> university boffins.
> Christchurch medical school associate professor of biostatistics
> Chris Frampton described the claimed death rates as "utter bumf."
A telling criticism.
>
> Auckland medical statistician Dr. Patricia Metcalf said the
> transport advertising campaign was "not telling the truth" and
> agreed the advertising campaign was an offence against
> intellectual honesty. Dr Metcalf said she was trying to find the
> initial report
Obviously a skilled researcher. It's at
http://www.transport.govt.nz/publications/vfecs/niwa_report.shtml.
> ... but the ministry statements about air pollution
> mortality were "numbers plucked out of the air."
... but she'll dismiss it without reading it.
>
>
> > · the following health problems can be attributed to vehicle emissions:
> > breathing difficulties, headaches, learning disabilities in children,
> > drowsiness, and cancer;
> > · many Aucklanders suffer from diseases of the upper respiratory system,
> > such as asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution;
>
> EPA report 1986
Right up to date, I see.
>
>
> ARC cooks the books on air pollution
>
> 19.08.2002
> By OWEN McSHANE
That's Owen - "complete the roading network, ommm... complete the roading
network, ommmmmm..." McShane.
> Aucklanders are puzzled. The Auckland Regional Council tells us
> that Auckland's air is polluted - filthier than the air of London
> and New York.
>
> Many of us do not believe it. How come the regional council's
> figures are so contrary to common sense? The answer is simple.
> They cooked the books.
>
...
>
> Yet the regional council insists that Auckland is more polluted
> than London.
...
>
> So what Auckland is the regional council measuring? Wellsford?
> Pukekohe? Piha?
>
> They are drawing on three highly polluted monitoring sites -
> Queen St, Khyber Pass Rd and some short-term readings in Dominion
> Rd.
>
Oooh, what an awful lie.
http://www.arc.govt.nz/index.cfm?EF902392-17B0-4D91-B3AC-EC2C1EF7BAA8
Key air pollutants (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, sulphur dioxide and lead) are monitored at various sites in the
Auckland Region to establish the levels of air quality. These sites include:
Peak Traffic & CBD sites: Queen Street, the Sky Tower, Khyber Pass
Residential: Mt Eden, Takapuna, Pakuranga, Henderson
Industrial: Penrose
'Remote' sites: Musick Point, Whangaparoa, Pukekohe.
In peak traffic sites and the central business district (CBD), monitoring
takes place 2-3 metres from the roadside. This provides an indication of the
amount of pollution pedestrians and people working close to busy roads might
be exposed to.
In residential areas monitoring takes place at least 10 metres from the
roadside representing areas where people live.
Some remote sites (away from the city) are monitored as they can be affected
by pollution from urban Auckland.
"Supergoof" <die.spammer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1057800123.283259@no-spam
> "Dan" wrote ...
> > I'm in the process of buying a big arse diesel truck that runs fine but
> > because it's diesel I guess I'm going to get a bit of shit from idiots
> with
> > nothing better to do...
>
> Yer, I have a diesel and though I wholeheartedly support cleaner fuels
> (especially low sulphur diesel), I'm hesitant about the emission controls
as
> diesels are, by nature, smokier than petrol engines and don't want to end
up
> paying some ridiculous amount of money because my car will always smoke
> under load.
>
> I think that's one of the reasons many people dislike SUVs as well,
there's
> loads of diesel powered ones and people object to the visible smoke that
> comes out of most of them.
Thing is, the visible smoke is made up of particles which are EXTREMELY
carcinogenic.
>
>
> > > Sue Bilstein says...
> > > > · filters for diesel powered vehicles require low sulphur fuel to
work
> > > > properly; and
> > > > · some people buy a car and take off the catalytic converter, which
> > filters
> > > > out a lot of toxic fumes - it should be illegal to do so.
>
> Most Jap imports have catalytic converters, but once they conk out it's
way
> too expensive to replace them, so they're basically gutted and left in
> place, which is the cheapest option. I can't see why anyone would take off
> the catalytic converter if it was working fine.
This is one point in the campaign which I believe needs more thinking out.
If cats can't be removed from imports but must be made to work, they will
just cut the cats off before import. I think the key thing is to set
emission standards and so long as the vehicle measures up, it doesn't need a
catalytic converter / particle filter. If it fails the test, it has to be
brought up to standard - tune-up, new rings, catalytic converter or whatever
it takes.
>
> If installing / replacing catalytic converters was way cheaper more people
> would have them. I think most people are concerned about the environment
to
> some degree, but most of the 'clean air' vehicle options are exhorbitantly
> expensive, so people just shove their consciences aside. :o)
>
This is the sort of issue where there's no point in acting as an individual.
If one driver installs a cat and has really clean exhaust, it is not going
to make an iota of difference to the pollution level in Auckland's air. It
has to be legislated.
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
news:SiaPa.75407$JA5.1408530@no-spam
> This is the sort of issue where there's no point in acting as an
individual.
> If one driver installs a cat and has really clean exhaust, it is not going
> to make an iota of difference to the pollution level in Auckland's air.
It
> has to be legislated.
What does make a difference is the 2000 miles of
empty ocean east and west swept by a variety of
weather patterns. How can Auckland have an air
pollution problem. :)
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4UQOa.74425$JA5.1369810@no-spam
> The pressure group Clean Air Auckland is circulating a petition which
reads
> as follows:
>
> "Petition for the Introduction of Vehicle Emissions Controls and Cleaner
> Fuel
>
> "To Hon Judith Tizard, Minister for Auckland
>
> "The petition of Clean Air Auckland and those undersigned respectfully
> submit that given the proven connection between air pollution and adverse
> health effects the Government needs to take action, and
>
> · Introduce vehicle emission standards;
> · Introduce mandatory vehicle emissions testing as part of the warrant of
> fitness (WOF); and
> · Require cleaner fuels."
>
> >> If anyone would like copies of the petition form to pass around, please
> email me. Signed copies need to be returned by 28 July 2003. <<
>
I'd sign it if I were in Auckland this month. I wonder if Karen
Hayward-King is interested? We are both in Reno at present. I'd like one
change, though. I wish they could clean up the cruise liners. Once in a
while one parks ouside my apartment. The US Navy nuclear ships I worked
around in the past put out much less crap.
"jfwilson" <jfwilson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:GYkPa.4103$9f7.450188@no-spam
>
> "Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:SiaPa.75407$JA5.1408530@no-spam
> > This is the sort of issue where there's no point in acting as an
> individual.
> > If one driver installs a cat and has really clean exhaust, it is not
going
> > to make an iota of difference to the pollution level in Auckland's air.
> It
> > has to be legislated.
>
> What does make a difference is the 2000 miles of
> empty ocean east and west swept by a variety of
> weather patterns. How can Auckland have an air
> pollution problem. :)
>
It seems incredible, doesn't it. But us Jafas have been working hard at it
for decades. Especially since the Jap imports started coming in.
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
news:%AuPa.76345$JA5.1445683@no-spam
> "jfwilson" <jfwilson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:GYkPa.4103$9f7.450188@no-spam
> >
> > "Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:SiaPa.75407$JA5.1408530@no-spam
> > > This is the sort of issue where there's no point in acting as an
> > individual.
> > > If one driver installs a cat and has really clean exhaust, it is not
> going
> > > to make an iota of difference to the pollution level in Auckland's
air.
> > It
> > > has to be legislated.
> >
> > What does make a difference is the 2000 miles of
> > empty ocean east and west swept by a variety of
> > weather patterns. How can Auckland have an air
> > pollution problem. :)
> >
>
> It seems incredible, doesn't it. But us Jafas have been working hard at
it
> for decades. Especially since the Jap imports started coming in.
It is incredible that selective evidence taken from
Queen St. canyons etc. during traffic congestion
times should be used to justify legislation covering
the whole country. The driving motive for this
campaign has to be someting other than air pollution.
"jfwilson" <jfwilson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:pAIPa.4398$9f7.482009@no-spam
>
> "Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:%AuPa.76345$JA5.1445683@no-spam
> > "jfwilson" <jfwilson@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:GYkPa.4103$9f7.450188@no-spam
> > >
> > > What does make a difference is the 2000 miles of
> > > empty ocean east and west swept by a variety of
> > > weather patterns. How can Auckland have an air
> > > pollution problem. :)
> > >
> >
> > It seems incredible, doesn't it. But us Jafas have been working hard at
> it
> > for decades. Especially since the Jap imports started coming in.
>
> It is incredible that selective evidence taken from
> Queen St. canyons etc. during traffic congestion
> times should be used to justify legislation covering
> the whole country. The driving motive for this
> campaign has to be someting other than air pollution.
>
I posted the answer to that one on this thread already, but you missed it.
Here it is again:
http://www.arc.govt.nz/index.cfm?EF902392-17B0-4D91-B3AC-EC2C1EF7BAA8
Key air pollutants (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, sulphur dioxide and lead) are monitored at various sites in the
Auckland Region to establish the levels of air quality. These sites include:
Peak Traffic & CBD sites: Queen Street, the Sky Tower, Khyber Pass
Residential: Mt Eden, Takapuna, Pakuranga, Henderson
Industrial: Penrose
'Remote' sites: Musick Point, Whangaparoa, Pukekohe.
In peak traffic sites and the central business district (CBD), monitoring
takes place 2-3 metres from the roadside. This provides an indication of the
amount of pollution pedestrians and people working close to busy roads might
be exposed to.
In residential areas monitoring takes place at least 10 metres from the
roadside representing areas where people live.
Some remote sites (away from the city) are monitored as they can be affected
by pollution from urban Auckland.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:17:49 +1200, "Sue Bilstein"
<sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote:
>
>Peak Traffic & CBD sites: Queen Street, the Sky Tower, Khyber Pass
>Residential: Mt Eden, Takapuna, Pakuranga, Henderson
>Industrial: Penrose
>'Remote' sites: Musick Point, Whangaparoa, Pukekohe.
And the point remains that taking readings from known high
concentration areas (due to traffic volume and geography) and making
the assumption that it is the same everywhere is (at best) poor
science if not outright fraud. Please explain.
Geoff
"geoffm" <geoff_m@no-spam> wrote in message
news:mqq0hvo1pvsjiml6h1ll6ctf3dhhpd0s1v@no-spam
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:17:49 +1200, "Sue Bilstein"
> <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >Peak Traffic & CBD sites: Queen Street, the Sky Tower, Khyber Pass
> >Residential: Mt Eden, Takapuna, Pakuranga, Henderson
> >Industrial: Penrose
> >'Remote' sites: Musick Point, Whangaparoa, Pukekohe.
> And the point remains that taking readings from known high
> concentration areas (due to traffic volume and geography) and making
> the assumption that it is the same everywhere is (at best) poor
> science if not outright fraud. Please explain.
Amazing that you didn't read the post you replied to. Have a look - you'll
see the explanation of how the various monitoring sites contribute to the
picture.
http://www.arc.govt.nz/index.cfm?EF902392-17B0-4D91-B3AC-EC2C1EF7BAA8
Key air pollutants (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, sulphur dioxide and lead) are monitored at various sites in the
Auckland Region to establish the levels of air quality. These sites include:
Peak Traffic & CBD sites: Queen Street, the Sky Tower, Khyber Pass
Residential: Mt Eden, Takapuna, Pakuranga, Henderson
Industrial: Penrose
'Remote' sites: Musick Point, Whangaparoa, Pukekohe.
In peak traffic sites and the central business district (CBD), monitoring
takes place 2-3 metres from the roadside. This provides an indication of the
amount of pollution pedestrians and people working close to busy roads might
be exposed to.
In residential areas monitoring takes place at least 10 metres from the
roadside representing areas where people live.
Some remote sites (away from the city) are monitored as they can be affected
by pollution from urban Auckland.
The polution at Musick Point must be from the ferries that are promoted by
the public transport lobby.
> Key air pollutants (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,
> ozone, sulphur dioxide and lead) are monitored at various sites in the
> Auckland Region to establish the levels of air quality. These sites
include:
>
> Peak Traffic & CBD sites: Queen Street, the Sky Tower, Khyber Pass
> Residential: Mt Eden, Takapuna, Pakuranga, Henderson
> Industrial: Penrose
> 'Remote' sites: Musick Point, Whangaparoa, Pukekohe.
>
> In peak traffic sites and the central business district (CBD), monitoring
> takes place 2-3 metres from the roadside. This provides an indication of
the
> amount of pollution pedestrians and people working close to busy roads
might
> be exposed to.
>
> In residential areas monitoring takes place at least 10 metres from the
> roadside representing areas where people live.
>
> Some remote sites (away from the city) are monitored as they can be
affected
> by pollution from urban Auckland.
"Neil Raines" <neilr@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3f10c18a@no-spam>...
> The polution at Musick Point must be from the ferries that are promoted by
> the public transport lobby.
>
They monitor the remote sites - Musick Pt, Whangaparaoa and Pukekohe -
to get a picture of what the air is like in the "cleaner" parts of the
region. Of the pollutants that they monitor, only ozone reaches alert
levels at the remote sites. Which is still a concern, as ozone is
nasty stuff.
As most of the internal combustion engines that emit NOX are in cars
and trucks rather than ferries, I'm afraid you can't blame the ferries
for it.
(from the ARC site)
Ozone
Although Ozone (O3) is a vital component of the upper atmosphere, at
ground level it is an unwanted toxic gas. Ozone causes runny eyes,
nose and throat irritations and breathing difficulties, especially for
asthmatics. It also affects the functioning of the heart.
Recent findings have actually shown ozone as causing asthma in
children.
Alert levels are reached at all monitoring sites. This is of concern
because it indicates that if nitrogen dioxide emissions from the urban
area continue to increase, there is potential for breaches of the
guideline at pristine and remote areas.
"Neil Raines" <neilr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f10c18a@no-spam
> The polution at Musick Point must be from the ferries that are promoted by
> the public transport lobby.
..or lawnmowers. Do not forget the lawnmowers.
Could even be blowing across from Sydney.