Benzene is emitted in exhaust gases and its side effects include cancer: 90% of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is produced from road traffic emissions: 1,3-butadiene is associated with traffic and is formed when fuels are burned and emitted in the exhaust, side effects include cancer: 46% of nitrogen dioxide is produced by road transport and affects lung function, and approx 25% of particulates in the air are produced from traffic, these causing respiratory problems and cancer. It is a direct analogy to smoking.
I think you're confusing %CO globally with %CO
man made emissions, the same with particulates.
About 60-80% of man made CO emissions are from vehicles but the last study I read said
total human activity contributed
at most 10% of CO levels
globally. That's not the same thing, by a factor of at least 10.
Global, ambient average levels are typically 0.09 - 0.11 ppm. In heavy rush hour traffic in cities that
can rise as high as 100ppm, well above safe levels but that's a
local phenomenon. Cars with Catalytic converters emit minimal CO. Also, the trend is down. For example ambient
US CO levels have fallen from about 9ppm to 2ppm since 1986. (EPA)
Man made particulates
are a major issue, especially in urban areas. PM10s (10 microns) and PM2.5 (2.5 microns) are the worst and both are components in vehicle exhausts, particularly diesels and are
the principal source in urban areas. Unpolluted air can contain 30 micrograms per cubic meter but urban air can be three times this. Recent changes in particulate controls are focusing on reducing PM2.5s. The US contributed about 3 million tonnes of PM10 and PM2.5 particles in 2006 (EPA), the latest figure I can find for the UK is 2005 of about 150,000 tonnes. (Defra) or which vehicles account for about 20%.
Note, that's 20% of
man made particulates not 20% of
total particlulates - that would imply that
all atmospheric particulates are man made which clearly isn't the case.
UK Defra | e-Digest Environment Statistics, Air quality
UK Defra | e-Digest Environment Statistics, Air quality
Benzene
is an acknowledged health risk for petrol station attendents but is rarely present at sufficient ambient levels to present a risk to the general public.
I can't find that study but I did find this.
BBC - h2g2 - Atmospheric Pollution from the Internal Combustion Engine in the Urban Environment
If one spends hours every day with one's nose up an exhaust pipe of a running vehicle or spend your day out in traffic all day one could draw, perhaps a direct analogy with tobacco fumes. That said, CO is not a
carcinogen as far as I know and (see above) not
generally present in
toxic quantities in the ambient atmosphere, nor is NO2. However there is plenty of evidence that long term exposure to CO (and NO2) is causing major health problems.
I don't recall hearing about a cancer say being attributed
directly to, say being a car passenger over an extended period. It may well happen though.
As before, you side step questions about your vehicle use, direct or indirect.
In short, there is
an analogy for sure, and traffic pollution is a major issue on many levels, as I believe I have already said. But I'm unconvinced it's a
directly comparible analogy for
most people in everyday life.
BTW, be careful, benzene is also present in tobacco fumes....as well as oven cleaners, detergents, furniture polish, spot removers etc.
I did intend to make a long post but to be honest I can't be bothered, the simple truth is that if many non smokers are presented with a reasonable proposition - namely that we have a right to smoke and that we contribute enough taxes that some of these should be set aside for the provision of proper smoking areas they still can't bring themselves to admit that we do have rights.
Your 'taxes'
wouldn't contribute toward the construction of such facilities other than in publicly funded civic facilities.
In most cases they are funded directly by private business owners. Did you decide to deliberately sidestep my other question about smokers are being willing to pay 'extra' for businesses to provide such facilities or does it hit too close to home?
Where here has anyone, once, said smokers
don't have a right to smoke, even though you actually don't per se. You just keep repeating that mantra.....in the hope that someone will believe it?