Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Chico resists SUV invasion
SUVs are pushing their way into Chico by coercing Chico city council to increase non-truck road carrying capacity from 6,000 to 14,000. SUVs reduce air quality and increase petroleum dependency, continuing the US occupation of Iraq..
Tuesday 16th evening at Chico City council gas-guzzling SUVs are given green light to ride on non-truck roads that suddenly increased their carrying capacity from 6,000 lbs to 14,000 lbs in a moment's notice. Somehow the words of the city council Tuesday night will add so much support to the pavement that the tree roots underneath will not be suffocated by the increase of pressure from the SUVs. Never mind the children playing outside who breath air..
American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are killing one another in the streets of Fallujah, Baghdad and throughout Iraq so that petroleum is available for SUV consumption. Bush, Cheney and other petroleum interests continue to profit at the excess petroleum sales in our SUV gas guzzling culture.
The increased combustion of oxygen by SUVs also depletes the air quality of cities like Chico, LA, Fresno, etc. and offers childern a carbon monoxide/nitrogen dioxide mixture that has shown to cause asthma, lung cancer, low level carbon monoxide poisoning (more CO, less O2 4 iron in hemoglobin), and other respiratory ailments..
Maybe the people of Chico will express how they feel about this at the public comment, our outside city hall in protest of the continued killing in Fallujah by the GW Bush-Queda/Saudi petroleum cabal and their SUV culture..
American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are killing one another in the streets of Fallujah, Baghdad and throughout Iraq so that petroleum is available for SUV consumption. Bush, Cheney and other petroleum interests continue to profit at the excess petroleum sales in our SUV gas guzzling culture.
The increased combustion of oxygen by SUVs also depletes the air quality of cities like Chico, LA, Fresno, etc. and offers childern a carbon monoxide/nitrogen dioxide mixture that has shown to cause asthma, lung cancer, low level carbon monoxide poisoning (more CO, less O2 4 iron in hemoglobin), and other respiratory ailments..
Maybe the people of Chico will express how they feel about this at the public comment, our outside city hall in protest of the continued killing in Fallujah by the GW Bush-Queda/Saudi petroleum cabal and their SUV culture..
For more information:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/Chico/200...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I just read in a Canadiane magazine that they have a hybrid style SUV by Ford Company. What do you think about that?
Moth, can you tell me what % of our oil/gas comes from Iraq?
The current supply of oil from Iraq is quite small.
While the potential supply is good, the real long term gain lies in the control of the surrounding area. Having a strong and permanent military presence is necessary for the long term domination of the entire middle east. So far we've got that established (and regardless of how messy, it's not going away) in Afganistan and Iraq. We're in good relations with Saudi Arabia and we're probably going to see some things started soon with Syria or Iran.
We are imperialists, don't sell yourself short by thinking we are in it only for short term profits. Major shifts are in store as the earths oil supply dwindles. Being that it's basically the American oil industry running our country, you can trust they know more details than they let on about and that these shifts are coming soon.
While the potential supply is good, the real long term gain lies in the control of the surrounding area. Having a strong and permanent military presence is necessary for the long term domination of the entire middle east. So far we've got that established (and regardless of how messy, it's not going away) in Afganistan and Iraq. We're in good relations with Saudi Arabia and we're probably going to see some things started soon with Syria or Iran.
We are imperialists, don't sell yourself short by thinking we are in it only for short term profits. Major shifts are in store as the earths oil supply dwindles. Being that it's basically the American oil industry running our country, you can trust they know more details than they let on about and that these shifts are coming soon.
Can you back up that statement? Also, could you comment on why during the invasion of Iraq, the Oil Ministry was defended, while the nukes and the museums were left open to all comers?
Here's a few news items that I recall (probably from KPFA) that might be germane.
** There is no Iraqi oil actually coming to the US.
** Fuel is actually being imported into Iraq, because so little is being pumped right now.
** Iraq does have the second largest proven reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia.)
My opinion:
Just because US corporations is not currently exporting oil out of Iraq (to the US or other nations), do not think that the war was about something other than control of a strategic resource. The neocons do want to sit on the Iraqi oil (it will be a lot more valuable in the future) and they want to establish a military presence in the middle of all the other oil-rich nations of the Middle East.
** There is no Iraqi oil actually coming to the US.
** Fuel is actually being imported into Iraq, because so little is being pumped right now.
** Iraq does have the second largest proven reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia.)
My opinion:
Just because US corporations is not currently exporting oil out of Iraq (to the US or other nations), do not think that the war was about something other than control of a strategic resource. The neocons do want to sit on the Iraqi oil (it will be a lot more valuable in the future) and they want to establish a military presence in the middle of all the other oil-rich nations of the Middle East.
The pollution from American cars is 90% less than it was 30 years ago. If "environmentalists" are so concerned about pollution from vehicles, please go to Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Cairo, Bombay, Bangkok, Shanghai, etc if you want to see what "pollution" from cars looks like. The problem is not here, it is in the developing world, which has almost NO emission controls at all. All the blather about "children" and "Iraq" is hot air.
If there were nukes in Iraq then this would support GWB reasoning to go war because of WMD.
...and allowed them to be looted. Like the looted sites storing massive quantities of high explosives, the nuclear sites had been under UN and IAEA jurisdiction and monitoring since the first Gulf War.
Please read the account here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36985-2003May9?language=printer
Please read the account here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36985-2003May9?language=printer
GWB's reasoning to go war because of WMD is bogus. America has WMDs. Does that mean America should be warred upon?
GWB was right that there were WMD in Iraq and that would mean GWB didn’t lie about Iraq having WMD and breaking the ceasefire agreement.
As to your question “heard it before”/nessie, I though you supported the idea that rest of the world should get together and break up the American Empire. Does that now mean you don’t support the idea anymore?
As to your question “heard it before”/nessie, I though you supported the idea that rest of the world should get together and break up the American Empire. Does that now mean you don’t support the idea anymore?
There have been WMDs in Iraq for decades, much of it provided by the U.S. government in the form of military aid during the 1980s. After the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's WMDs were either dismantled, shipped elsewhere, or in possession and under the sole jurisdiction of the UN. In 2003, the Iraqi government had no WMDs that we know of.
First they had them, then they didn’t have them, then they had them but it was all under the control of the UN, now someone stole them because the UN wasn’t allowed to safeguarding against them, yet they were never really there to begin with because Iraq never had WMD.
to get through the whole article. then maybe you'll understand.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/05/MNGC99MFI91.DTL
Top U.N. arms inspector slams Bush
He says invading Iraq has damaged credibility of U.S.
- Robert Collier, James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, November 5, 2004
The chief U.N. nuclear arms inspector sharply criticized the Bush administration Thursday, saying the American invasion and occupation of Iraq had damaged the credibility of the United States.
In a speech at Stanford University, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the Security Council had practiced double standards by using a " 'good guys versus bad guys' approach" that encouraged nations to build weapons secretly, and he accused the council of having "little to no response" as North Korea built nuclear arms.
ElBaradei's speech was a remarkable challenge to President Bush only two days after his re-election, and it sets the IAEA chief on an open collision course with the administration.
Only last week, ElBaradei was accused by some administration supporters of trying to embarrass Bush in the last days of the campaign by releasing information about looted explosives in Iraq. Also last week, administration officials announced that the United States would oppose ElBaradei's bid for a third term at the helm of the IAEA.
Although ElBaradei's remarks Thursday were couched in diplomatic language, his arguments were much more specific and unambiguous than is usual for a U.N official.
ElBaradei opened by noting that his prewar conclusions that Saddam Hussein did not have any nuclear weapons programs had been proved correct, despite Bush administration claims to the contrary. "Inspections were working, " ElBaradei said, referring to the constant scouring of Iraq by U.N. arms experts.
ElBaradei described the U.S.-led coalition's invasion and occupation of Iraq in stark terms.
"The coalition lost in credibility in some people's eyes by proceeding to use force without the endorsement of the Security Council," he said. "The United Nations lost in credibility ... and as a result has come to be perceived in some quarters -- particularly by many in Iraq -- as an adjunct of the coalition force, and not as an independent and impartial institution."
ElBaradei rebutted the U.S. argument that despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi people had benefited from the U.S. invasion.
"Perhaps it is the Iraqi people who have lost the most ..." he said. "They have had still more misery brought on by the ravages of war and the unforeseen and extended period of insurgency and civil disorder."
In an interview with The Chronicle before his speech, ElBaradei said that contrary to Bush administration warnings that Iraq's neighbor, Iran, was developing nuclear weapons, no such proof had been found.
"We haven't seen any concrete intelligence that points to a fact that Iran has a nuclear weapons program," he said. "We have seen Iran experimenting with all aspects of the fuel cycle, but we still have lots of work to do" in continuing IAEA inspections inside Iran.
The Bush administration has been pressing the IAEA to declare Iran in violation of its treaty obligations and to send the case to the Security Council, where economic sanctions could be imposed. This push has caused speculation in world capitals that despite its current problems in Iraq, the United States would try for "regime change" to topple Iran's Shiite Muslim government.
ElBaradei said that often-bogus intelligence information about Hussein's alleged arsenal before the Iraq war had made him look closely at information given by Western intelligence agencies. "What I do not want is disinformation, " he said. "There's a difference between robust inspection and harassment, and I do not want to end up in a situation where I'm continuously harassing a country based on misinformation."
In his speech to Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, ElBaradei also pressed for greater urgency in dealing with the nuclear threat from North Korea. He complained that after Pyongyang threw out IAEA inspectors in 2002, neither the Security Council nor the United States had responded promptly.
He also addressed a more fundamental question -- whether all non- nuclear nations should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, or only those nations that the West viewed as hostile. The Bush administration has implicitly taken the latter position.
ElBaradei called the U.S. policy a " 'good guys versus bad guys' approach that inevitably leaves some nations seeking to achieve parity."
ElBaradei said this arms race could be slowed if the United States and its allies implemented the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would halt all nuclear weapons testing. The treaty was signed by President Bill Clinton, but the Senate refused to ratify it. The Bush administration has abandoned any efforts to seek ratification, and some officials have said the United States should formally withdraw from the treaty.
ElBaradei also called for adding a significant new power to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the principal mechanism for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
He suggested renegotiating the treaty to stop countries from even developing the capabilities for enriching uranium. As it is now, the treaty gives all nations the right to enrich uranium if they claim it is to be used to generate electricity. ElBaradei called these programs "latent weapons programs" because they can quickly be transformed into factories for making the highly enriched uranium or plutonium needed for nuclear weapons.
Many developing nations that rely on nuclear power, such as Brazil and Vietnam, strongly oppose any limits on their right to enrich uranium.
"In my view, we have come to a fork in the road," ElBaradei said. "Either there must be a demonstrated commitment to move toward nuclear disarmament, or we should resign ourselves to the fact that other countries will pursue a more dangerous parity through proliferation."
In the Chronicle interview, ElBaradei warned starkly that "our global survival is at stake."
He predicted "a situation within 20 years when you have 30 to 40 countries that are not far away from developing weapons ... and can do it if they choose."
E-mail the authors at rcollier [at] sfchronicle.com and jsterngold [at] sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/05/MNGC99MFI91.DTL
Top U.N. arms inspector slams Bush
He says invading Iraq has damaged credibility of U.S.
- Robert Collier, James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, November 5, 2004
The chief U.N. nuclear arms inspector sharply criticized the Bush administration Thursday, saying the American invasion and occupation of Iraq had damaged the credibility of the United States.
In a speech at Stanford University, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the Security Council had practiced double standards by using a " 'good guys versus bad guys' approach" that encouraged nations to build weapons secretly, and he accused the council of having "little to no response" as North Korea built nuclear arms.
ElBaradei's speech was a remarkable challenge to President Bush only two days after his re-election, and it sets the IAEA chief on an open collision course with the administration.
Only last week, ElBaradei was accused by some administration supporters of trying to embarrass Bush in the last days of the campaign by releasing information about looted explosives in Iraq. Also last week, administration officials announced that the United States would oppose ElBaradei's bid for a third term at the helm of the IAEA.
Although ElBaradei's remarks Thursday were couched in diplomatic language, his arguments were much more specific and unambiguous than is usual for a U.N official.
ElBaradei opened by noting that his prewar conclusions that Saddam Hussein did not have any nuclear weapons programs had been proved correct, despite Bush administration claims to the contrary. "Inspections were working, " ElBaradei said, referring to the constant scouring of Iraq by U.N. arms experts.
ElBaradei described the U.S.-led coalition's invasion and occupation of Iraq in stark terms.
"The coalition lost in credibility in some people's eyes by proceeding to use force without the endorsement of the Security Council," he said. "The United Nations lost in credibility ... and as a result has come to be perceived in some quarters -- particularly by many in Iraq -- as an adjunct of the coalition force, and not as an independent and impartial institution."
ElBaradei rebutted the U.S. argument that despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi people had benefited from the U.S. invasion.
"Perhaps it is the Iraqi people who have lost the most ..." he said. "They have had still more misery brought on by the ravages of war and the unforeseen and extended period of insurgency and civil disorder."
In an interview with The Chronicle before his speech, ElBaradei said that contrary to Bush administration warnings that Iraq's neighbor, Iran, was developing nuclear weapons, no such proof had been found.
"We haven't seen any concrete intelligence that points to a fact that Iran has a nuclear weapons program," he said. "We have seen Iran experimenting with all aspects of the fuel cycle, but we still have lots of work to do" in continuing IAEA inspections inside Iran.
The Bush administration has been pressing the IAEA to declare Iran in violation of its treaty obligations and to send the case to the Security Council, where economic sanctions could be imposed. This push has caused speculation in world capitals that despite its current problems in Iraq, the United States would try for "regime change" to topple Iran's Shiite Muslim government.
ElBaradei said that often-bogus intelligence information about Hussein's alleged arsenal before the Iraq war had made him look closely at information given by Western intelligence agencies. "What I do not want is disinformation, " he said. "There's a difference between robust inspection and harassment, and I do not want to end up in a situation where I'm continuously harassing a country based on misinformation."
In his speech to Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, ElBaradei also pressed for greater urgency in dealing with the nuclear threat from North Korea. He complained that after Pyongyang threw out IAEA inspectors in 2002, neither the Security Council nor the United States had responded promptly.
He also addressed a more fundamental question -- whether all non- nuclear nations should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, or only those nations that the West viewed as hostile. The Bush administration has implicitly taken the latter position.
ElBaradei called the U.S. policy a " 'good guys versus bad guys' approach that inevitably leaves some nations seeking to achieve parity."
ElBaradei said this arms race could be slowed if the United States and its allies implemented the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would halt all nuclear weapons testing. The treaty was signed by President Bill Clinton, but the Senate refused to ratify it. The Bush administration has abandoned any efforts to seek ratification, and some officials have said the United States should formally withdraw from the treaty.
ElBaradei also called for adding a significant new power to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the principal mechanism for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
He suggested renegotiating the treaty to stop countries from even developing the capabilities for enriching uranium. As it is now, the treaty gives all nations the right to enrich uranium if they claim it is to be used to generate electricity. ElBaradei called these programs "latent weapons programs" because they can quickly be transformed into factories for making the highly enriched uranium or plutonium needed for nuclear weapons.
Many developing nations that rely on nuclear power, such as Brazil and Vietnam, strongly oppose any limits on their right to enrich uranium.
"In my view, we have come to a fork in the road," ElBaradei said. "Either there must be a demonstrated commitment to move toward nuclear disarmament, or we should resign ourselves to the fact that other countries will pursue a more dangerous parity through proliferation."
In the Chronicle interview, ElBaradei warned starkly that "our global survival is at stake."
He predicted "a situation within 20 years when you have 30 to 40 countries that are not far away from developing weapons ... and can do it if they choose."
E-mail the authors at rcollier [at] sfchronicle.com and jsterngold [at] sfchronicle.com.
BTW, the Chico City Hall is located on 4th and Main, across the street from the downtown plaza, the meeting is in the evening, but not sure when is public comment on the SUV issue (am just traveling through here). Anyone who would like to join me in protest of the SUV invasion is welcome to show up at Chico city hall around sunset and we can move from there...
11 percent of the world´s oil reserves are in Iraq, the future reserves are being held via military force by the current US administration in preparation for peak oil, coming in the next decade..
The Bush/Saudi Royalty connection is part of the interest in Iraq, having a monopoly on the global oil supply is a goal of an imperialist government, whether Bush here or Saudi royalty there. Another reason Syria and Iran are on Bush´s hit list, these other nations are also located on the Arabian tectonic plate that is being compressed by the African rift and the mountains of Afganistan/Kazakstan/etc..
The compression of this plate pools the oil into wells that make petroleum extraction easier that other places like Alaska, Siberia, etc..
By controlling the remaining oil reserves into the future, the imperialists led by Bush are poised for global control..
We could be learning to live with sustainable technology like biodiesel, weather-proof bicycles, public transit, mag-lev, etc., but this is not something that benefits the petroleum CEOs and the current political cabal that want the American people to be dependant on petroleum for the remaining supply, or til they control an alternative energy supply like hydrogen, it is still about continuation of the imperialist corporate monopoly..
Hybrid vehicles don´t need to be SUVs, they are more efficient as smaller vehicles like the Prius, either way, they still consume petroleum, at best hybrids are a "lesser evil", maybe Kerry would like one for his troubles..
Americans can decide if the constant killing of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (usually working class) is worth a few priviliged folks tootin around town in their petroleum consuming SUVs/trucks etc. for the next decade til the remaining oil becomes so difficult to extract that nobody can afford it. In the meantime residents of cities like LA, Fresno, and maybe now Chico can continue to breathe CO in their smog, have asthma in their children and wait in traffic behind Ford Explorers exhaust pipes..
Yes, the air quality in Mexico City, Bogota and other developing nations is far worse than here, that doesn´t mean we need to make it worse here either. There are people living there who are trying to make bicycles and public transit more practical for the population so children won´t have to grow up breathing petrochemical smog..
What does Madre Tierra have in store for the future, what kind of world do u want?
11 percent of the world´s oil reserves are in Iraq, the future reserves are being held via military force by the current US administration in preparation for peak oil, coming in the next decade..
The Bush/Saudi Royalty connection is part of the interest in Iraq, having a monopoly on the global oil supply is a goal of an imperialist government, whether Bush here or Saudi royalty there. Another reason Syria and Iran are on Bush´s hit list, these other nations are also located on the Arabian tectonic plate that is being compressed by the African rift and the mountains of Afganistan/Kazakstan/etc..
The compression of this plate pools the oil into wells that make petroleum extraction easier that other places like Alaska, Siberia, etc..
By controlling the remaining oil reserves into the future, the imperialists led by Bush are poised for global control..
We could be learning to live with sustainable technology like biodiesel, weather-proof bicycles, public transit, mag-lev, etc., but this is not something that benefits the petroleum CEOs and the current political cabal that want the American people to be dependant on petroleum for the remaining supply, or til they control an alternative energy supply like hydrogen, it is still about continuation of the imperialist corporate monopoly..
Hybrid vehicles don´t need to be SUVs, they are more efficient as smaller vehicles like the Prius, either way, they still consume petroleum, at best hybrids are a "lesser evil", maybe Kerry would like one for his troubles..
Americans can decide if the constant killing of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (usually working class) is worth a few priviliged folks tootin around town in their petroleum consuming SUVs/trucks etc. for the next decade til the remaining oil becomes so difficult to extract that nobody can afford it. In the meantime residents of cities like LA, Fresno, and maybe now Chico can continue to breathe CO in their smog, have asthma in their children and wait in traffic behind Ford Explorers exhaust pipes..
Yes, the air quality in Mexico City, Bogota and other developing nations is far worse than here, that doesn´t mean we need to make it worse here either. There are people living there who are trying to make bicycles and public transit more practical for the population so children won´t have to grow up breathing petrochemical smog..
What does Madre Tierra have in store for the future, what kind of world do u want?
suv's in chico!
you might want to stop and think that they are the "working pepole" who will be donating money to the food program that feeds you, and the homeless shelter where you live.
as they say don't bite the hand that feeds you
you might want to stop and think that they are the "working pepole" who will be donating money to the food program that feeds you, and the homeless shelter where you live.
as they say don't bite the hand that feeds you
even if it slaps you around.
where do you get that SUV drivers are the working people that contribute to homeless programs more that any other citizen? I mean I know they're saints and all...
where do you get that SUV drivers are the working people that contribute to homeless programs more that any other citizen? I mean I know they're saints and all...
even if it slaps you around. are you into that?
you seem to have a few anger management issues to work on. you seem resentful that others have chosen to make something of their life. besides, whoelse would you expect to take care of you? while you are (saving the world?) or making weather-proof bicycles (bwahahahahahaha!)
you seem to have a few anger management issues to work on. you seem resentful that others have chosen to make something of their life. besides, whoelse would you expect to take care of you? while you are (saving the world?) or making weather-proof bicycles (bwahahahahahaha!)
You were wrong, there were no “nukes” in Iraq. Or are you going to change your story again and say they really did have them.
The Chico city council vote is over, they started at 8:30 am and the non-truck road carrying capacity increase from 3,000 to 14,000 was approved by all the city council members except one member (Steve Bertagana) who was disqualified from the vote..
The members that voted pro-SUV weight increase were Larry Wahl, Dan Herbert, Maureen Kirk, Dan Nguyen-Tan, and Scott Gruendl..
Too bad for bicycle riders and people who want clean air without the excess smog emissions (CO, NOx, CO2) of SUVs, these gas guzzlers now have complete access on non-truck roads in Chico..
Meanwhile Iraqi civilians continue to suffer under US military occupation while their oil reserves are being managed by Halliburton and Bush/Cheney puppet Allawi. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are the two largest remaining petroleum reserves in the world, now both in the hands of the Bush regime..
Congrats to Colin Powell for finally regaining some common sense and leaving the Bush regime..
The members that voted pro-SUV weight increase were Larry Wahl, Dan Herbert, Maureen Kirk, Dan Nguyen-Tan, and Scott Gruendl..
Too bad for bicycle riders and people who want clean air without the excess smog emissions (CO, NOx, CO2) of SUVs, these gas guzzlers now have complete access on non-truck roads in Chico..
Meanwhile Iraqi civilians continue to suffer under US military occupation while their oil reserves are being managed by Halliburton and Bush/Cheney puppet Allawi. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are the two largest remaining petroleum reserves in the world, now both in the hands of the Bush regime..
Congrats to Colin Powell for finally regaining some common sense and leaving the Bush regime..
Petroleum dependency is cause of US occupation of Iraq is also responsible for smog and low level carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning in inner city residents..
Petroleum dependency is the reason of the US military occupation of Iraq, second to Saudi Arabia for petroleum reserves (11% world's remaining oil). It seems Halliburton/Bechtel control of the petroleum infrastructure of Iraq is the US interest of gaining a near monopoly on global oil supply..
Sound like US imperialism?
Public Service Announcement;
Meanwhile in cities around the world (including America) petroleum combusted smog plagues the lungs of children and inner city residents. Some info not yet addressed by mainstream healthcare professionals is the chronic exposure to low levels of carbon monoxide (CO) found in auto exhaust. SUVs and large trucks emit 3x as much CO, NOx, CO2 as regular cars. These gas guzzlers also consume greater amounts of oxygen (O2) in the process of gasoline combustion..
"Auto exhaust contains 9% CO, catalytic converters reduce CO levels to below 1%."
Now multiply the number above by the amount of vehicles during rush hour traffic, then by 2-3 for every SUV/truck..
"CO normally appears in atmospheric concentrations of less than 0.001% (10 parts per million)."
"Expressway CO levels approach 25-100 parts per million. A 90 minute Los Angeles freeway exposure produced ECG abnormalities in 40 % of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and decreased exercise tolerance."
When CO is inhaled during normal breathing, the CO molecule shows 230-270 times greater affinity than oxygen to the iron in the blood's hemoglobin. The role of hemoglobin in the body is to transport oxygen to maintain living cells in the body. When CO bumps O2 off the hemoglobin, it cannot transport O2 and is considered carboxylated (COHb) with a half-life of 3-4 hours..
0.007% CO in atmosphere = 10 % COHb in blood (sangre)
symptoms = shortness of breath w/ vigorous exertion, dilation of cutaneous blood vessels
0.012 % CO in atmosphere = 20 % COHb in blood
symptoms = shortness of breath on moderate exertion, occasional headache with throbbing temples
0.022 % CO in atmosphere = 30 % COHb in blood
symptoms = decided headache, irritable, easily fatigued, judgement disturbed, possible dizzyness, dimness of vision
Further increase in atmospheric CO can result in collapse (0.035-0.052% CO in air, 40-50 % in blood) , unconsciousness (0.080-0.122% CO in air, 60-70 % in blood) or fatality (0.195 % CO in air, 80% in blood)
Atmospheric CO level 50 ppm = 8 % COHb in sangre
CO 100 ppm = 16% COHb in sangre
CO 200 ppm = 30 % COHb in sangre
Perceptible clinical effects occur with 2 hour exposure to atmospheric CO at 100 ppm (0.01%)..
Expressway traffic from 25-100 ppm, this doesn't include the additional factor of less oxygen availability due to combustion of gasoline and absence of trees (O2 producers). When oxygen is depleted by engine combustion, CO is increased by emissions, the ratio imbalance (including 230-270x greater affinity to CO than O2 by hemoglobin) can possibly lead to higher COHb than mentioned above..
Does "road rage" sound more like low level CO poisoning symptom irritability? What about misdiagnosed depression, fatigue and other common symptoms?
Long term effects on children and inner city residents that are exposed to low level CO poisoning on a daily basis can suffer long term damage to the heart and brain..
People have a choice. Please find a way to avoid petroleum dependency. Save the children from low level CO poisoning from auto smog..
Sources;
"Medical Toxicology Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning"
(Ellenhorn and Barceloux) pp. 820-825
http://www.airinfonow.org/pdf/CARBON%20MONOXID2.PDF.
or
http://www.airinfonow.org
& click on "health effects"
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network