[cmar]

Yes quite correct - statistical averages are just that, not real people. I would love to see the mathematics used to justify that number.

[Rupert]

I have a real problem attributing a specifc number of deaths to any such events.
We see this every summer. "100 degree plus temps today are responsible for 6 deaths." Right. Prove those 6 people would still be alive if the temperature had only been 90 and I'll believe the heat killed them.

The elderly.....living in tiny apartments with no AC or many times even a fan. It can easily reach 130F inside and cook them alive. Many already have trouble breathing or weak hearts. When I worked for the police dept back in '70 I was aware of several cases first hand....very sad. Did the heat kill them? No more than water kills a drowning victim.......contributing factor would be a better description for heat related deaths, but it doesn't make as good a news story.

Regards!

As for those exploding air bags.....not much question that when a faulty air bag slices through your jugular at 200mph it is not just "air bag related".

[WPRESTO]

Several things:
1) US companies complain endlessly and bitterly about "regulations," but the truth is a) the vast majority of those regulations are a response to abuse = something one or more businesses did that was wrong, bad, dangerous, etc. b) the fact that businesses complain indicates that if not constrained by law, they rush to cheat, put out defective or unsafe products, pollute, overprice, etc.
2) businesses inherently are out to make money, and they will do whatever is necessary to achieve that end. The most egregious practice (IMHO) at present is introducing new packaging for consumable products such as cereal, soap, etc, with 14 ounces instead of 16, but no change in price. Whatever they sanctimoniously claim, it is a flagrant attempt to deceive.
3) when a business gets sufficiently large, the honesty and integrity of any and all top executives is irrelevant. If profits are not being made, the company stock declines, the BOD, who only see and care about the ledgers, wants results. So...
4) it has been my experience that V-A-V EPA mileage ratings, if it's an American built car, you'll never get that mileage; if it's a Japanese built car, your mileage may be higher. My new Forester is rated @ 28mpg on the highway, but I'm averaging over 31mpg for all driving, the majority on local streets.
5) One of my favorite anecdotes about American business practice: The Ford Pinto was found to have a defect in the placement of the gas tank that caused fiery crashes in which people were burned sometimes to death. Ford became aware of it before the government did, but at a board meeting where the problem was discussed they decided against a recall because, as the CEO pointed out, it was less expensive to pay the lawsuits for injuries in crashes than to recall and and fix the problem. Businesses sometimes talk about "cost-benefit analysis," but that actually means "what yields the highest profit?"

[Rupert]

1) US companies complain endlessly and bitterly about "regulations," but the truth is a) the vast majority of those regulations are a response to abuse = something one or more businesses did that was wrong, bad, dangerous, etc. b) the fact that businesses complain indicates that if not constrained by law, they rush to cheat, put out defective or unsafe products, pollute, overprice, etc.

Yep, those that complain about regulations are usually the biggest abusers. With human nature, being what it is, regulations are as necessary as oxygen for survival in a profit driven world.

Regards!

[WPRESTO]

I have a real problem attributing a specifc number of deaths to any such events.
We see this every summer. "100 degree plus temps today are responsible for 6 deaths." Right. Prove those 6 people would still be alive if the temperature had only been 90 and I'll believe the heat killed them.

Correlation of events may or may not indicate a causal relationship. "Proving" that cigarettes caused a particular pack-a-day smoker to die of lung cancer is inherently impossible, and for decades the tobacco industry hid behind "there is no proof that anyone has ever died because of smoking." One of the worst recorded pollution incidents happened in London in 1952 when over a two week period a sulfur-rich smog settled on the city and the number of deaths increased by 4,000 over the average number for the same time period without fog. In 1948 an inversion held in smoke for six days from a zinc smelter and several factories over a small Pennsylvania town (pop: 14,000). 1,400 people sought medical help, 600 became seriously ill, and 20 died (more than the average number of deaths for a 6-day period in that town). Did the air pollution cause these deaths? Do repeated instances of this kind "prove" that air pollution poses significant health risks? If not, then by all means go light up your Lucky Strike, there is no proof that it's dangerous.

[Parallax]

but it doesn't make as good a news story.

That was part of my point.

In 1948 an inversion held in smoke for six days from a zinc smelter and several factories over a small Pennsylvania town (pop: 14,000). 1,400 people sought medical help, 600 became seriously ill, and 20 died

A single, catastrophic event such as that is different than blaming a specific number of deaths on a protracted situation; particularly if that situation has multiple components and contributors.

Did the air pollution cause these deaths? Do repeated instances of this kind "prove" that air pollution poses significant health risks?

In this case; absolutely. If a tree falls on someone and kills him, it would indeed be a lame argument to say "well, he might have had a heart attack at that moment and died anyway". Does air pollution in general kill people? Yes, and it's not in dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases that kill directly. There's been a long enough history and a large enough comparative database to prove it. Any one death of a smoker can, with reasonable certainty, be declared a result of smoking.


106 people died as a result of VW diesels exceeding emission standards? Come on!

[condor27596]

I used to work in the air pollution regulatory field. Sometimes companies with deep pockets drive strict regulations and expensive control technology to drive under the competition.

[Winder]

I used to work in the air pollution regulatory field. Sometimes companies with deep pockets drive strict regulations and expensive control technology to drive under the competition.

Since most regulations are actually written by the industry that is being regulated, this is a common practice. I watched an documentary on Silicon Valley and one of the CEOs was talking about being approached by a well known member of the House of Representatives from California and basically being told that the government was going to regulate the internet and he could help write those regulations..... for the right amount of money.

Since you use to work in the industry maybe you can comment on this. I read an article about the introduction of catalytic converters came about Honda has other technology that allowed it to meet the testing standards without having to go to the expense of installing catalytic converters. Detroit played a big role in writing the regulations and adding cost to the imports was part of it. It was a way for Detroit to use regulations against its competition.

If the regulations actually worked, then we wouldn't be talking about VW right now.

[Parallax]

I read an article about the introduction of catalytic converters came about Honda has other technology that allowed it to meet the testing standards without having to go to the expense of installing catalytic converters.

My 1972 Honda Coupe had a technology that did just that. The spark plugs fired on the exhaust stroke as well as the power* stroke. It burned any fuel that didn't burn on the power stroke and allowed it to meet the requirements (In California, no less!) of the day.

* Yeah, I know. Technically they fire on the compression stroke just before TDC.

[mrNewt]

Emissions tests are a joke and just a money grab scheme... I passed emission test without any cat on the car... go figure that one out.

[Parallax]

Emissions tests are a joke and just a money grab scheme...

Fortunately we don't have emission tests or safety inspections here.

[mrNewt]

Fortunately we don't have emission tests or safety inspections here.

And I hope you will never get them!

[Parallax]

When I first got here, in 1978, SD had required safety inspections, but they did away with them that year or the next.

[Tom S.]

Emissions tests are a joke and just a money grab scheme... I passed emission test without any cat on the car... go figure that one out.

I can easily explain it. Emission equipment is there for the complete engine cycle, from cold start to hot stop. Many vehicles can pass the standards with a hot engine because it is burning fuel at it's optimal rate, which reduces emissions. When cold or before it reaches operating temps (something many vehicles never do on short trips) however, it's a different story. When Michigan had emission testing, they never checked for the catalytic convertor, and lots of guys passed the test by making sure the engine was hot before taking it in for testing. In fact, I even had a guy who worked at one place tell me to do that if I ever took the convertor off.

[mrNewt]

I can easily explain it. Emission equipment is there for the complete engine cycle, from cold start to hot stop. Many vehicles can pass the standards with a hot engine because it is burning fuel at it's optimal rate, which reduces emissions. When cold or before it reaches operating temps (something many vehicles never do on short trips) however, it's a different story. When Michigan had emission testing, they never checked for the catalytic convertor, and lots of guys passed the test by making sure the engine was hot before taking it in for testing. In fact, I even had a guy who worked at one place tell me to do that if I ever took the convertor off.

Not sure how inspections are over there, but here, is an OBD inspection - they don't connect anything to the exhaust. So that trick with warming up the car is not really working . Is all about what the car's computer is telling to the testing computer.