Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
I understand that. However, how much exposure to each substance is required to produce the carcinogenic effect? How many tonnes of toxins are released into the environment annually by each activity? And how much could reasonably be reduced by the introduction of sensible legislation?
You can't simply say 'car exhaust kills more people than tobacco smoke'. Before the statistic can be meaningful, you have to understand how many tonnes of each pollutant is required to kill one person.
None of the above, by the way, should be taken to mean that nothing should be done about air pollution and vehicle exhaust's role in it. In fact, a lot has been done already. Legislation has removed lead from petrol, fitted catalytic converters to exhaust pipes and reduced sulphur and particulates in diesel engine exhaust. Still, more can be done. And I will be happy to debate it endlessly just as soon as one of the pro-smokers who profess to care so much about it, demonstrates their care by starting another thread on it, instead of using it as a spurious argument against targeting smoking.
|
But to use your argument from earlier, when I was asking for specific research, that as this would take a long time to undertake should not mean that we do not act now. Therefore would it not be sensible to ban (or seriously restrict) driving and flying until we have all the facts? As we appear to have done for smoking in public places.
For me the comparison was more about Government time and priority, ratehr than a spurious, we shouldn't do anything about smoking because vehicle emissions are very bad too.