GM Volt Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,537 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Almost 2,000 times more particle pollution is produced by tire wear than is pumped out of the exhausts of modern cars, tests have shown.

The tire particles pollute air, water and soil and contain a wide range of toxic organic compounds, including known carcinogens, the analysts say, suggesting tire pollution could rapidly become a major issue for regulators.

The tests also revealed that tyres produce more than 1tn ultrafine particles for each kilometre driven, meaning particles smaller than 23 nanometres. These are also emitted from exhausts and are of special concern to health, as their size means they can enter organs via the bloodstream. Particles below 23nm are hard to measure and are not currently regulated in either the EU or US.
Factors that increase tire pollution are
  • Aggressive driving
  • Heavier vehicles
  • Tire ingredients
  • Tire Brand
You could do a lot by eliminating the most toxic tyres. It’s not about stopping people driving, or having to invent completely different new tyres. If you could eliminate the worst half, and maybe bring them in line with the best in class, you can make a massive difference. But at the moment, there’s no regulatory tool, there’s no surveillance.

So next up would be EPA testing tires for the degree of particulates they produce? I wonder how LLR tires affect wear? Do they contain more or less carcinogens? What brands are more toxic? If I had the information it would definitely affect my tire purchases all things being equal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
The interesting thing is that all vehicles, ICEV and EV have this issue. I agree it would be nice to have this information to use it as one of my inputs into my tire selection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomadodd

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,537 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The interesting thing is that all vehicles, ICEV and EV have this issue. I agree it would be nice to have this information to use it as one of my inputs into my tire selection.
BEV's being a bit heavier make their tires wear more, all else being equal. If solid state batteries ever arrive, that will help address the weight issue given they are significantly lighter than lithium ion.
 

·
Registered
2017 LT
Joined
·
152 Posts
Fun facts: What IS a nano-meter? A nano meter is a metric unit of measurement. Specifically, if you take a meter ( like ~39" ) and divide it up by a BILLION times you get a nano meter. Now, the wave length of visible light is about 500 nano meters. A corona virus is about 125 nm. So, who used what device to measure these 25 nano meter rubber particles?
Additionally, how did they verify that these invisible samples were indeed rubber particles? We are talking fantastically small stuff here. I know am totally geeking out here, but some members of the forum do like to "run the numbers":)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
I used to build numerical models of point-sources of atmospheric pollutants coming from industrial stacks.

Back a million years ago, if we were trying to estimate the amount of stuff that couldn't be measured because it was "too small to be detected," we would take the value that tickled the instrumentation and build a distribution that matched the characteristic of what we were trying to estimate. Like, if you want to estimate sizes/amounts of a particulate too small to measure, what is the distribution of a particulate from a similar material that you could measure.

We'd build the make-believe distribution of the non-detectable substance with the tickling amount as the top end of the curve.This assumes that the pollutant of interest was distributed the same as the one you could measure: That's something that makes logical sense, but you couldn't prove one way or the other.

We were able to get enough people to agree with the statistical approach to gain stack permits in the Southern California Air Quality Management District, which is one of the toughest locations in the nation. I don't know if the numbers we came up with were real, but they were accepted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
I've wondered about this for a while; interesting to see some specifics, even as it's hard to evaluate the specifics offered here. And even if this overstates the issue, it's almost by definition problematic.

Relatedly, I've wondered for a while whether fancy air filtration and management systems will become more common in US homes. For now, most homes rely on their so-called "leaky envelope" for fresh air and don't have systematic ways of venting stale air, either (with the exception of kitchen and bathroom fans and of course dedicated venting for appliances like heaters and water heaters). Given how important air quality is to wellbeing, I'm surprised this still gets treated as an afterthought most of the time in residential construction (commercial construction is a different story).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
BEV's being a bit heavier make their tires wear more, all else being equal. If solid state batteries ever arrive, that will help address the weight issue given they are significantly lighter than lithium ion.
EVs are heavier than ICE but is not so heavy compared to a freight truck at 72000 lbs. Why don't they pick on them?
 

·
Registered
OpenEVSE home charger, 2013 Volt base, added tow hitch, K&N filters, 3d printed interior mods, etc
Joined
·
69 Posts


I saw some prototypes maybe 10 years ago about tires made from organic oils like orange oil. Supposedly way less toxic for us and roadside ecosystems.

Heavy metals from brake dust aren't awesome either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
There’s a report about a study in the Pacific NW which tracked tire wear debris flow into Salmon waterways. Apparently the toxicity of the tire debris was drastically affecting fertility and the spawning success. Attempts are being made to somehow control storm water runoff. Capture and filter I suppose?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,537 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
There’s a report about a study in the Pacific NW which tracked tire wear debris flow into Salmon waterways. Apparently the toxicity of the tire debris was drastically affecting fertility and the spawning success. Attempts are being made to somehow control storm water runoff. Capture and filter I suppose?
In labs they use centrifuges and special filters. I would think it's very hard (almost impossible?) to filter nano particles once they are in nature. Filter screens on road runoff would clog immediately. After all, some particals are small enough to pass from the air in your lungs into your blood stream. It's one thing to centerfuge or filter in a lab or from an exhaust pipe, it's another when the particultes have entered the general environment. The least expensive and most effective way is to eliminate or reduce the source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
I used to build numerical models of point-sources of atmospheric pollutants coming from industrial stacks.

Back a million years ago, if we were trying to estimate the amount of stuff that couldn't be measured because it was "too small to be detected," we would take the value that tickled the instrumentation and build a distribution that matched the characteristic of what we were trying to estimate. Like, if you want to estimate sizes/amounts of a particulate too small to measure, what is the distribution of a particulate from a similar material that you could measure.

We'd build the make-believe distribution of the non-detectable substance with the tickling amount as the top end of the curve.This assumes that the pollutant of interest was distributed the same as the one you could measure: That's something that makes logical sense, but you couldn't prove one way or the other.

We were able to get enough people to agree with the statistical approach to gain stack permits in the Southern California Air Quality Management District, which is one of the toughest locations in the nation. I don't know if the numbers we came up with were real, but they were accepted.
In other words, it's a WAG (Wild A$$ Guess).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
In other words, it's a WAG (Wild A$$ Guess).
Well… We tested it out with a number of pollutants where we had old tickling readings before instrumentation improved and found that our distributions matched within an 85% probability T-test 80% of the time, when the distributions were normal, that is. For non-normal populations, we had to transform them in various ways, but it was good enough for the work we were doing and far better that just guessing. At least we could estimate the probability of being wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obermd

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,537 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Well… We tested it out with a number of pollutants where we had old tickling readings before instrumentation improved and found that our distributions matched within an 85% probability T-test 80% of the time, when the distributions were normal, that is. For non-normal populations, we had to transform them in various ways, but it was good enough for the work we were doing and far better that just guessing. At least we could estimate the probability of being wrong.
So an educated approximation based on a reasonable model that was repeatable and turned out to be significantly accurate once instrumentation caught up to provide measured results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
So an educated approximation based on a reasonable model that was repeatable and turned out to be significantly accurate once instrumentation caught up to provide measured results.
Yeah… There are enough big words in that sentence that it has to be true! ;)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,537 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: rogued and FlipFlop

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
They will make the data fit the narrative as soon as possible.
When in denial, throw out a "they" conspiracy, lol
Why not? This is what the global warming proponents have been doing for decades now. Cherry picking their numbers to claim more warming than has actually occurred while ignoring historical CO2 levels vs. temperature. Yes, the globe is warming but it has been doing so since the end of the last ice age. For the vast majority of that time humans had no global impact simply because there weren't that many of us.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: DeanRHolden

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,537 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Why not? This is what the global warming proponents have been doing for decades now. Cherry picking their numbers to claim more warming than has actually occurred while ignoring historical CO2 levels vs. temperature. Yes, the globe is warming but it has been doing so since the end of the last ice age. For the vast majority of that time humans had no global impact simply because there weren't that many of us.
Atmosphere Light Font Line Rectangle


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
From Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was more than 20 times the "baseline of 300 PPM". The claim that CO2 has never been above 300 PPM is a flat out lie.

Slope Rectangle Plot Line Font


In addition, from the abstract of

https://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Evidence.pdf said:
As shown in the Greenland GISP2 ice cores, late Pleistocene abrupt temperature fluctuations occurred in only 20–100 years, clearly not caused by atmospheric CO2 because they occurred thousands of years before atmospheric CO2 levels began to rise. Global temperature curves show a cool reversal from ~1950 to ~1977), inferring that global temperatures then were not driven by atmospheric CO2. Solar irradiance curves almost exactly match the global temperature curve and satellite data suggest that the earth has received increased solar radiation over the past 25 years, coinciding with the present 25–year warm cycle.
The problem with CO2 as the cause of global temperature changes is that none of the CO2 based models accurately predict climate trends, nor does even "recent" history reflect this correlation. What does match global temperature swings, both since the start of the industrial age and throughout geologic time, is solar output.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top