No new petrol or diesel cars by 2040

[Doggit]

I'm starting to wonder if we should all take what you hear with a hypertensive, stroke inducing, bucket of salt.

God, this hurts to do this, but there was a report on the news tonight referring to the third link that JD gave. The idea is to retrofit the existing busses to cut down on the particulate emmisions using an upgraded exhaust system.

Other than that, I agree with you.

 

[JohnD]

I am certainly wondering why JohnD is so exercised by it.

Because I find it tragic that millions of babies and children suffered brain damage which in many cases has blighted their lives, saddened their parents, limited their education, marriage and employment prospects, and pushed them an inch nearer a life of violence and crime which has also blighted, and sometimes ended, the lives of their victims. Not to mention costing the taxpayer unknown sums in trying to deal with their problems.

As you may know, I am excessively soft-hearted, and my kindly soul is tormented by the sufferings of others.

I would go so far as to say that the companies and politicians who prolonged the use of lead for their own ends were not just ignorant and misguided, they were wicked.

https://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/innospec-ltd/

"State officials in Indonesia and Iraq were bribed in order to secure contracts from the governments of Indonesia and Iraq for the supply of products produced by Innospec Ltd (previously called Associated Octel Corporation) including Tetraethyl Lead, also known as TEL, an octane booster to be added to engine fuel. Leaded fuel, i.e. fuel that contains TEL, was banned in the UK in 2000 due to links between the compound and severe neurological damage.

Innospec Ltd, UK subsidiary of Innospec Inc, pleaded guilty to bribing employees of an Indonesian state owned refinery and other government officials in Indonesia. Paul Jennings and David Turner pleaded guilty to bribing state officials in Indonesia and Iraq, while Dennis Kerrison and Miltiades Papachristos were both found guilty of bribing state officials in Indonesia.

Dennis Kerrison was sentenced to four years in prison (later reduced to three), Paul Jennings was sentenced to two years in prison, Miltiades Papachristos was sentenced to 18 months in prison and David Turner was sentenced to a 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years with 300 hours unpaid work."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/30/lead-bribery-octel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/09/leaded-gas-corruption-innospec_n_5662418.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/01/toxic-chemical-innospec-bribe
"In 2006, Turner boasted in an email that "Indonesia was planning to go lead free in 2000 … this obviously did not happen for a number of reasons and since 1 January 2000 until the present we have supplied 28,390 tons of TEL … generating $277m in revenue."

Some of the sweeteners were paid to impede Indonesian politicians from bringing in laws to ban the chemical"

 

[JohnW2]

Because I find it tragic that millions of babies and children suffered brain damage which in many cases has blighted their lives, saddened their parents, limited their education, marriage and employment prospects, and pushed them an inch nearer a life of violence and crime which has also blighted, and sometimes ended, the lives of their victims.

I would hope that we all find it tragic, but that does not help me to understand what has been, or is to be, gained by investigating the matter many years after the toxin in question had been banned in most countries. If TEL were still being used, that would obviously be a totally different matter.

Not to mention costing the taxpayer unknown sums in trying to deal with their problems.

Again, no amount of 'after the event investigation' will do anything about that - and, indeed, many of these 'late' investigations and discussions have, I presume, been undertaken directly or indirectly at taxpayers' expense.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"comparing absolute figures"

I find your lack of attention disturbing.

For example, the Abortion Act of 1967 in the United Kingdom, all but legalizing abortion, occurred well before before Roe but the UK had a surge in crime after the United States' peak (though only by a couple years). Contrariwise, Canada experienced tighter restrictions in legalized abortions from 1969-1988 but had a crime wave similar in duration, peak, and decline of that of the United States.[17]

That is drawing comparisons between a surge in crime in the UK and one in the USA. It would only need one of those countries to have had different rules for classifying crime, and/or changes to the way it quantified and classified crimes for the comparison to be meaningless. Ditto Canada and the USA.

 

[JohnD]

no, it is saying that crime fell after the removal of lead in the USA, and in Canada, and in the UK.
Which fits the pattern of lead as a possible cause

It is saying that although crime fell before and after liberalisation of abortion in the US, the same did not happen in Canada or the UK.
Which does not fit the pattern of more liberal abortion as a possible cause.

It is not comparing crime rates across the three countries.

 

[JohnW2]

no, it is saying that crime fell after the removal of lead in the USA, and in Canada, and in the UK. ... Which fits the pattern of lead as a possible cause

I think that BAS's points is that, given the frequent changes in the way in which crimes are reported within a given country (or State), it is very difficult to determine whether or not crime has 'fallen' in any given period of apprerciable length. As I recently wrote, in the UK there were major changes in 1998 and 2002 as to the way that 'violent crime' was recorded. ...

The one thing one can say from this is that the only period during which there was a fall in UK police-recorded violent crime was 2006-2011 (all in the "post-NCRS" period, hence no change in recording practices), after which there was a rise.

Kind Regards, John
Edit: Arrrghhh. The image gremlin has struck again - I'll see if I can do anything about it!

 

[JohnD]

homicides (although the terminology and graduations may change) have a very high reporting rate, and a very high detection rate.

Turning back to the idea that homicide rates in large American cities (tending to have the greatest pollution) used to be much higher than in smaller cities, I think we can reasonably say that if the recording of homicides had changed in the US after 1990, the effects would be visible in small cities, not just in big cities.

What do you see here?

What year was the peak, and when did the dramatic decline begin?

Where were the effects greatest?

Did the differential of the largest cities disappear?

Was there also a decline (much smaller) in the smaller cities?)

(source: Document previously linked)

 

[JohnW2]

What do you see here?

An image placeholder

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Trying again to post this image ....

I think that BAS's points is that, given the frequent changes in the way in which crimes are reported within a given country (or State), it is very difficult to determine whether or not crime has 'fallen' in any given period of apprerciable length. As I recently wrote, in the UK there were major changes in 1998 and 2002 as to the way that 'violent crime' was recorded. ...

Violent Crime UK2

• JohnW2
• 27 Jul 2017

The one thing one can say from this is that the only period during which there was a fall in UK police-recorded violent crime was 2006-2011 (all in the "post-NCRS" period, hence no change in recording practices), after which there was a rise.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

Any better?

http://www.monbiot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/homicide-rates.png

(US Bureau of Justice)

"Nothing else seems to explain these trends. The researchers have taken great pains to correct for the obvious complicating variables: social, economic and legal factors. One paper found, after 15 variables had been taken into account, a four-fold increase in homicides in US counties with the highest lead pollution(11). Another discovered that lead levels appeared to explain 90% of the difference in rates of aggravated assault between US cities(12)."

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/01/07/the-grime-behind-the-crime/

 

[ban-all-sheds]

He shouldn't.

I don't. And inferring that I do because I asked about evidence of a link between exposure to lead and one specific brain disease, the causes of which are not yet, or not fully, truly understood is flawed.

I think the problem we have here is that JohnD is indeed, to some extent, confusing correlation with causation, but more significantly he is treating any suggestion that whether there is a presence, or absence, of actual evidence should be of concern is actually people telling him that he is wrong and that there are no links whatsoever.

 

[JohnW2]

Any better?

http://www.monbiot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/homicide-rates.png

(US Bureau of Justice)

Well, your link works, but what appears in your post is still only a placeholder.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I don't. And inferring that I do because I asked about evidence of a link between exposure to lead and one specific brain disease, the causes of which are not yet, or not fully, truly understood is flawed.

Indeed.

I think the problem we have here is that JohnD is indeed, to some extent, confusing correlation with causation, but more significantly he is treating any suggestion that whether there is a presence, or absence, of actual evidence should be of concern is actually people telling him that he is wrong and that there are no links whatsoever.

To be fair to John, and all the others involved, it is fairly clear that, for whatever reason, a lot of effort has been expended in attempts to rule out other possible explanations for the correlation - and elimination of alternative hypotheses is one of the few ways that one can increase confidence (but, of course, never to the point of certainty) that the hypothesised causal relationship is 'real' in a situation like this.

However, I remain unsure of what could be the reason for all this 'after the event' interest and effort. There is really no doubt that exposure to lead, and hence to TEL in petrol, can cause brain damage, with manifestations including behavioural disorders, undoubtedly in some cases including violent behaviour. However, that hazard (TEL in petrol) has been eliminated, which is good. Similarly, if there has been a reduction in violent crime in recent decades (although what I just posted does not seem to convincingly support that in the UK), then that is also good, regardless of what factors/changes have brought it about.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

I asked about evidence of a link between exposure to lead and one specific brain disease

You didn't "ask about evidence."

 

[JohnD]

I think that BAS's points is that, given the frequent changes in the way in which crimes are reported within a given country (or State), it is very difficult to determine whether or not crime has 'fallen' in any given period of apprerciable length. As I recently wrote, in the UK there were major changes in 1998 and 2002 as to the way that 'violent crime' was recorded. ...
View attachment 123888

that's interesting

the graph suggests that violent crime was growing using the old method, until the old method was discontinued; and continued growing under the new method, until it reached a peak in 2005, when there was a persistent decline until about 2014

Tracking back 20 years, I wonder what the "lead in petrol" chart shows us for UK around 1985

Transport usage
year - kilotonnes lead
1980 - 7.5
1981 - 6.7
1982 - 6.8
1983 - 6.9
1984 - 7.2
1985 - 6.5
1986 - 2.9
1987 - 3.0
1988 - 3.1
1989 - 2.6
1990 - 2.2

http://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/pollutants?view=summary-data&pollutant_id=17