https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to >such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to health.
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis
more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for
our understanding of the potential health effects of road vehicle-associated PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation
to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the >lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to >such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to health.It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis
more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for
our understanding of the potential health effects of road vehicle-associated >PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation
to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the >lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris >Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to >>such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to health. >>
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis >>more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >>differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >>amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for
our understanding of the potential health effects of road vehicle-associated >>PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >>potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation
to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the >>lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:16:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou asked for evidence, I gace it. It is on topic.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris >>Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to >>>such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to health. >>>
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis >>>more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >>>differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >>>amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for >>>our understanding of the potential health effects of road vehicle-associated >>>PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >>>potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation >>>to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the >>>lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
Your going off-topic again, Tony.
New Zealand affecting costs incurred by the community in either directYou are off topic, not me./
heath costs, or the costs of maintaining our roads. We do not compare
well with other countries in not ensuring that charges measure
contributions to these costs by individual vehicles and charge
accordingly.
The government policy is that it intends to meet the requirements ofNo they will not, you have told that lie many times, but it is not the truth and never will be.
the Paris accord - but the current government will almost always find
one of the three parties pandering to objectors to nearly everything -
the costs of continuing as we are is tacitly accepting that New
Zealand will be liable for penalties for poor performance in relation
to those agreements . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:16:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou asked for evidence, I gace it. It is on topic.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris >>>Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to >>>>such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to health.
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis >>>>more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >>>>differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >>>>amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for >>>>our understanding of the potential health effects of road vehicle-associated
PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >>>>potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation >>>>to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the >>>>lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
Your going off-topic again, Tony.
This relates to costs incurred in
New Zealand affecting costs incurred by the community in either direct >>heath costs, or the costs of maintaining our roads. We do not compareYou are off topic, not me./
well with other countries in not ensuring that charges measure >>contributions to these costs by individual vehicles and charge
accordingly.
No they will not, you have told that lie many times, but it is not the truth >and never will be.
The government policy is that it intends to meet the requirements of
the Paris accord - but the current government will almost always find
one of the three parties pandering to objectors to nearly everything -
the costs of continuing as we are is tacitly accepting that New
Zealand will be liable for penalties for poor performance in relation
to those agreements . . .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:37:51 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh Dear, Rich lying and distoring again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:16:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou asked for evidence, I gace it. It is on topic.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris >>>>Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to >>>>>such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to >>>>>health.
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis >>>>>more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >>>>>differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >>>>>amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for >>>>>our understanding of the potential health effects of road >>>>>vehicle-associated
PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >>>>>potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation >>>>>to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the >>>>>lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
Your going off-topic again, Tony.
This relates to costs incurred in
New Zealand affecting costs incurred by the community in either direct >>>heath costs, or the costs of maintaining our roads. We do not compare >>>well with other countries in not ensuring that charges measure >>>contributions to these costs by individual vehicles and charge >>>accordingly.You are off topic, not me./
No they will not, you have told that lie many times, but it is not the truth >>and never will be.
The government policy is that it intends to meet the requirements of
the Paris accord - but the current government will almost always find
one of the three parties pandering to objectors to nearly everything - >>>the costs of continuing as we are is tacitly accepting that New
Zealand will be liable for penalties for poor performance in relation
to those agreements . . .
Oh Dear - Tony showing a closed mind yet again: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/498515/the-multibillion-dollar-climate-hole-faced-by-both-labour-and-national
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:37:51 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh Dear, Rich lying and distoring again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:16:33 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:You asked for evidence, I gace it. It is on topic.
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris >>>>>Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down to
such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to >>>>>>health.
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis >>>>>>more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >>>>>>differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >>>>>>amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for >>>>>>our understanding of the potential health effects of road >>>>>>vehicle-associated
PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition on >>>>>>potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation >>>>>>to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than the
lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
Your going off-topic again, Tony.
This relates to costs incurred in
New Zealand affecting costs incurred by the community in either direct >>>>heath costs, or the costs of maintaining our roads. We do not compare >>>>well with other countries in not ensuring that charges measure >>>>contributions to these costs by individual vehicles and charge >>>>accordingly.You are off topic, not me./
No they will not, you have told that lie many times, but it is not the truth >>>and never will be.
The government policy is that it intends to meet the requirements of >>>>the Paris accord - but the current government will almost always find >>>>one of the three parties pandering to objectors to nearly everything - >>>>the costs of continuing as we are is tacitly accepting that New
Zealand will be liable for penalties for poor performance in relation >>>>to those agreements . . .
Oh Dear - Tony showing a closed mind yet again: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/498515/the-multibillion-dollar-climate-hole-faced-by-both-labour-and-national
That irrelevant post of your does not show any penalties. It is also opinion >based with no science.
Sorry Rich, you are just not honest enough to debate here.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:59:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I have not. You are lying. Provide a quote from a post of mine or piss off, you silly boy.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:37:51 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh Dear, Rich lying and distoring again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:16:33 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:You asked for evidence, I gace it. It is on topic.
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00617-2
It shows the absurdity of some of our behaviour, like following the Paris >>>>>>Accord that the deputy PM is rightly questioning our part in.
It seems that we have now got the tail pipe emissions for vehicles down >>>>>>>to
such a level that the dust from the brake pads are a greater risk to >>>>>>>health.
From the article
"Conclusions
We demonstrate here that brake-wear PM may perturb cellular homeostasis >>>>>>>more than diesel exhaust PM. Our findings demonstrate the potential >>>>>>>differences in effects, not only for non-exhaust vs exhaust PM, but also >>>>>>>amongst different sources of non-exhaust PM. This has implications for >>>>>>>our understanding of the potential health effects of road >>>>>>>vehicle-associated
PM.
More broadly, our findings illustrate the importance of PM composition >>>>>>>on
potential health effects, highlighting the need for targeted legislation >>>>>>>to protect public health. "
There is also fine dust from tyre wear, which is probably greater than >>>>>>>the
lighter fossil fuel powered cars.
Your going off-topic again, Tony.
This relates to costs incurred in
New Zealand affecting costs incurred by the community in either direct >>>>>heath costs, or the costs of maintaining our roads. We do not compare >>>>>well with other countries in not ensuring that charges measure >>>>>contributions to these costs by individual vehicles and charge >>>>>accordingly.You are off topic, not me./
No they will not, you have told that lie many times, but it is not the >>>>truth
The government policy is that it intends to meet the requirements of >>>>>the Paris accord - but the current government will almost always find >>>>>one of the three parties pandering to objectors to nearly everything - >>>>>the costs of continuing as we are is tacitly accepting that New >>>>>Zealand will be liable for penalties for poor performance in relation >>>>>to those agreements . . .
and never will be.
Oh Dear - Tony showing a closed mind yet again: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/498515/the-multibillion-dollar-climate-hole-faced-by-both-labour-and-national
That irrelevant post of your does not show any penalties. It is also opinion >>based with no science.
Sorry Rich, you are just not honest enough to debate here.
Previously you have admitted that there is a penalty
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:45:50 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,669 |