Catalytic Converters and the EPA.

Mustangbelle306 · 04-08-2002, 11:34 PM

Here is an interesting paper I composed for my Environmental class. The assignment was to write an editorial for a newspaper, so please excuse the colloquial writing, it was supposed to appeal to even the stupidest citizens that can manage to hold a paper

Enjoy!

This Cat’s a Bit “Hot” Under the Collar

What type of cat causes pollution when cold, attempts to work when hot, and is hazardous to your health? If you own an automobile, you most likely have one in your exhaust system. A catalytic converter (commonly referred to as a “cat”) is a pollution-control device that has been required on most vehicles in the USA since the mid 1980s. Housed within a protective metal structure, the interior honeycomb design is coated with platinum and rhodium. These catalysts speed up the oxidation reactions to convert harmful exhaust gases (carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons) into less toxic substances (water and carbon dioxide gas).

Once touted as the savior of the gasoline engine, the cat has proven much less effective than once expected. Scientific studies have proven that cats emit toxic substances that cause fatal respiratory diseases in humans, including lung cancer. Some of these gases include cyanide and cyanic acid, hydrogen-sulfur, and phosgen (which was utilized in World War I as a combat gas). These substances are NOT produced by the engine, but rather by the cats themselves. Another suspected side effect is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). As cases began emerging in America in the late 1980s (following the introduction of cats), it is very likely that chemical reactions occurring in the cat account for the massive onset of CFS. Similar trends have also been documented in Japan, Australia, and some parts of Europe after introduction of cat-equipped vehicles.

In addition to health related side effects, cats also pose a threat to the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cats have been identified as a large contributor to global warming. The cats can rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas). The EPA published a study estimating that nitrous oxide now comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Cars and trucks fitted with cats produce nearly half of that amount. The EPA calculated that production of nitrous oxide from vehicles rose by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 1996 (older, non-cat cars were for the most part obsolete).

Although the automotive industry has come a long way in producing more environmentally sound products, much improvement is still required in order to secure a better future. Now that we know the problem, what do we do about it? As a citizen you should be concerned about your environment, and as a consumer (emissions equipment accounts for 2% of a car’s MSRP) you should insist on an effective product for your money. Essentially, the catalytic converter was an attempt to trade one evil for a lesser-known evil (smog for health issues and global warming). As we learn more about the effects of our technological advances, we must continue to improve our preventative techniques, and the public must be part of that forward movement.

I was thinking about sending that in to MMFF mail or something...think its worth it?

tireburner163 · 04-09-2002, 12:00 AM

Yes it is good enough.

Now I'm glad I'm gonna remove my cats

Mustangbelle306 · 04-09-2002, 12:03 AM

Are those 22s on your 2.3L?

tireburner163 · 04-09-2002, 09:19 AM

no belle they are only 20's

Mr 5 0 · 04-09-2002, 09:41 AM

Mustangbelle:

The piece is fine, nicely written. I would give it an 'A'.
My problem is with the premise.

I don't believe much of anything the EPA says, especially when it comes to 'global warming', a scientific phantom that the enviro-nuts use to ban anything they don't like, especially the automobile.

Factual observations:

Sources for the 'scientific studies' that show catalytic converters can cause lung cancer? I'm sure they exist, you just need to name them for credibility.

I believe that catalytic converters were required on all cars manufactured in the U.S. starting in 1975, not the mid-80's.

Personal observations:

Yes, the catalytic converter may have flaws and problems, but the people knocking it are NOT seeking to eliminate the cat, that's just a trojan horse. They want to eliminate cars that run on gasoline which they see as killing the planet and people. I strongly disagree.

These folks (like the EPA bureaucrats) want us to drive little electric cars that 'don't pollute'. They also don't go very far, very fast, either, but to the EPA loonies, that is your car of the future, so get used to it.

In my considered opinion, screw them.

U.S.-manufactured vehicles pollute only a tiny amount but as the statements you quoted in your essay showed, the enviromental loonies can find danger and death everywhere when it comes to automobiles - which they hate with a passion. What I think they dislike so much isn't the so-called 'pollution' (that's a front) but the freedom for the individual the personal gasoline-powered automobile offers. Try hopping in your electric car-of- the-future for a nice cruise on Friday night. Somehow, it won't be the same (you can't go far or fast) and that's how the enviro-whackos want it. No fast cars, no racing, no freedom. All for our own good and to 'save the planet' of course. Hmmmm.

So Belle, although you wrote a good essay I have to part company with the premise that finds every other heath problem stemming from catalytic converters, because it's basically unproven and in my opinion is just another way to say 'Cars Pollute...we're all gonna die' and call for banning the gasoline engine. If you doubt it, read some EPA and other enviro-whacko lliterature (I have) and you see that in their view, the gasoline engine can never be made 'safe' enough. Electric cars are the 'only' solution. If possible, bicycles would be even better.

As for sending it to MM&FF, I have a feeling they would give you the same response but hey, why not? See what happens.

Mustangbelle306 · 04-09-2002, 10:23 AM

I included all my sources when I submitted it to my professor, didn't think it would be necessary on this site..

Also, the EPA article did not entirely push for the use of electric cars. The premise of the article was to reinvent the cat to burn cleaner at idle, when a staggering amount of the pollution and harmful fumes are emitted...Although I don't disagree that the EPA would be in favor of electic cars, I don't think their catalytic converter argument is concerning that part of their usually skewed agenda, however I do see how it could be linked

I don't always find fault with the EPA, just with some of their narrow minded policies concerning automobiles. I know that had it not been formed, industry would probably still be using older cheaper technology with NO environmental regulations, and our car show summers would probably have more Code Red days then we already do.

My disagreement with their automobile policies is why I have chosen the field I'm currently enrolled in...would be nice to try to make a change, as overly optimistic as that may sound.

Crazy Horse GT · 04-09-2002, 10:30 AM

just a kinda short comment belle, i agree that cat's suck, when they get stopped up your car wont run worth a crap, plus they gag you to death with the fumes

i usually take a straight rod & bust up all the sh-- inside & shake it out.

Mustangbelle306 · 04-09-2002, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

I believe that catalytic converters were required on all cars manufactured in the U.S. starting in 1975, not the mid-80's.

So Belle, although you wrote a good essay I have to part company with the premise that finds every other heath problem stemming from catalytic converters, because it's basically unproven and in my opinion is just another way to say 'Cars Pollute...we're all gonna die' and call for banning the gasoline engine. If you doubt it, read some EPA and other enviro-whacko lliterature (I have) and you see that in their view, the gasoline engine can never be made 'safe' enough. Electric cars are the 'only' solution. If possible, bicycles would be even better.

The cat was INTRODUCED in the 1970s, but was not REQUIRED until the 1980s (when the 3 way cat was introduced). Feel free to check it out:

http://www.fisita.com/exhibit/emissions/history.html

Though I could have been technical about the inception date, I was more concerned about when it actually affected Americans and their automobiles...

About credibility...2 of my sources were The Brewer Library in Wisconsin, and the German Oncology society and Department of Medicine.

Cars DO pollute, and they DO harm the environment. I just choose to accept that risk, and drive my gasoline powered vehicle. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing, or that just bc the EPA IS a bunch of tree huggers, that my behavior is any less destructive. There is NO safe car either way...even electric vehicles use energy that is derived from burning coal...that's life.

I also do not feel that the EPA's crusade has ANYTHING to do with personal freedoms at all...not saying their intentions are any more savory, but I don't see any "evidence" of an anti-freedom campaign. I feel that claim is more unproven than any that I have made.

I'm pretty far from a treehugger, but humans ARE the most wasteful race in existence, and our abuse of fossil fuels is no exception. I'm no doomsayer, proclaiming that we are going to perish because we are going to run out of resources anytime soon, but I also do feel that we DO need some common sense regulations concerning the environment. I just wish the damn EPA could find a middle ground...encouraging less wasteful behavior, but at the same time not shoving battery cars and HOV lanes down our throats.

Conservation is a mentality that can only be cultivated over time and with education ( and DOESN'T have to use stupid hybrid vehices), yet the EPA is still convinced they can change the world in a century... not likely.

Mr 5 0 · 04-09-2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mustangbelle306

My disagreement with their automobile policies is why I have chosen the field I'm currently enrolled in...would be nice to try to make a change, as overly optimistic as that may sound.

I have little use for the EPA and believe they are almost totally anti-automobile but I admire your optimism and wish you well in your chosen field.

silver_pilate · 04-09-2002, 12:16 PM

Belle,

It was a very well written piece. I enjoyed reading it.

I'm not cutting the article in any way here, but in order to add credibility to your arguments, you must do like Mr 5.0 suggested and cite specific sources if you were to submit this piece for publication.

Also, as far as sources go, in the scientific realm (which is where I have spent the majority of my time in education and career), sources are meticulously scrutinized. If there are any weaknesses in your presentation or your sources of information, they will find it and pick the article apart. In order for a source to be considered valid to anyone of scientific mind who happens to read the article, it must come from a peer reviewed literature of some sort. These sources typically provide the most controlled and objective studies. Journal articles can be great sources of information if the studies were done properly. And don't think they won't look up your sources. They will, and if the study is weak, not done properly, or statistically inconclusive, they will tear it apart.

Further, published book or even school textbooks are not sufficient sources of scientific data (unless they scite specific studies, in which case you need to look up the study and cite it as the source). It's funny that all you need to do in order to get a book...even a school textbook published is provide the publisher with incentive for profit. There is no peer review or standards held.

Reguardless, like I said before, good job on the article. It would be a good piece for a paper or circular of some sort. Just remember, if you want to present a really powerful argument on your case, make sure your sources are iron clad. This way your article will stand in the face of criticism and will present a scientifically sound and persuasive argument.

--nathan

Mr 5 0 · 04-09-2002, 01:27 PM

Mustangbelle306:

Well, we disagree on the motivations of the EPA then. So be it.

I find them to be doing whatever they can to restrict human activity - especially automobile use - and blame humanity for anything and everything that might possibly have any environmental impact, which turns out to be just about everything, including the infamous 'cow flatulance'/methane gas 'problem' they 'found' that made them look like idiots a few years ago.

I see the EPA agenda to be that of ursurping personal freedom by imposition of regulations - which they are very good at.

Regulation is fine when it can be proven to be necessary, but not from unelected bureaucrats hiding behind titles in some EPA cubbyhole in D.C. These things should be voted on by our representatives in Congress, not simply imposed on the nation at will by a federal agency, giving us no say in the matter. More like rule by fiat than democracy and I can't defend it, as you seem able to do.

Example: Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to determine how much water my toilet bowl can hold and what the flush rate (water flow) should be? Nowhere, of course, but we now have such a federal, nationally-imposed regulation on toilets. For our own good, of course. Right.

Sure, the EPA does some good but they stay in business and get their budgets funded by always finding some enviromental 'problem' to be addressed. Constantly. Cars are a common target. Always will be, too. Everybody owns one, the automakers have billions and since no car is truly pollution-free, they can always find a 'problem' to address. It'll never end and I get tired of it. Give it a few years and you might, too.

I'm unable to share your faith in big government agencies to 'help' Americans, especially the EPA. I also do not find it necessary to apologize for being human and by being human to aid in spreading 'pollution' throughout the land every time I drive or do much of anything. That's bull.

Third world countries might pollute unnecessarily but in America, we've cleaned up a lot and this country is far better than it ever was a hundred or even fifty years ago in terms of pollution, corporate and personal.

We have no need to apologize to the EPA about 'waste' or pollution. We've addressed the problem and will continue to do so. The liberal mindset of the EPA that assumes both private citizens and corporations will pollute like maniacs without the wise men at a government agency to stop them is insulting and wrong, in my opinion.

So, we part company on the value, the motives and agenda of the EPA, Belle.

You still wrote a good essay, no need to be defensive. It's the EPA I have problems with, not catalytic converters or you.

Jeb_Bush_2000 · 04-09-2002, 02:26 PM

Quote:

The cats can rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide ...

Awright!

Ponycar_302 · 04-09-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

The assignment was to write an editorial for a newspaper, so please excuse the colloquial writing, it was supposed to appeal to even the stupidest citizens that can manage to hold a paper

That's true. The majority of Americans read on a 6th grade education level.

Quote:

Scientific studies have proven that cats emit toxic substances that cause fatal respiratory diseases in humans, including lung cancer.

Geeze. Next thing you know scientists will say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.

Quote:

I'm not cutting the article in any way here, but in order to add credibility to your arguments, you must do like Mr 5.0 suggested and cite specific sources if you were to submit this piece for publication.

I agree. For example, my best friend's bone stock 90 Mustang GT runs low 11's in the quarter mile. I haven't provided any proof to back up my claim. You can't prove me wrong because you have never seen it or been there. Chances are pretty good you don't believe me though, and now my credability is shot to hell. Cite your sources.

All in all it's a good article. It's informative, easy to comprehend, and just interesting enough to keep reading until the end. Be ready to defend it though. You have written a biased article in your view, and others will definately want you to hear theirs. You seem to have done quite well already here, but remember, we LIKE you.

For the record:
I agree with you.
I hate the EPA.
I have no cats on my car.
I know cigarettes cause lung cancer.
And finally, see sig....

Mustangbelle306 · 04-09-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

Sure, the EPA does some good but they stay in business and get their budgets funded by always finding some enviromental 'problem' to be addressed. Constantly. Cars are a common target. Always will be, too. Everybody owns one, the automakers have billions and since no car is truly pollution-free, they can always find a 'problem' to address. It'll never end and I get tired of it. Give it a few years and you might, too.

I'm unable to share your faith in big government agencies to 'help' Americans, especially the EPA.

Third world countries might pollute unnecessarily but in America, we've cleaned up a lot and this country is far better than it ever was a hundred or even fifty years ago in terms of pollution, corporate and personal.

I wasn't defensive of myself, except when you start bringing up sources...Christ it was a school paper, and when I said send it in to a magazine, I meant in LETTERS, not as some official document. I wouldn't publish my name on anything that I didn't witness first hand, I was merely trying to show people that not all the environment "fix-ups" we are told are GREAT and hunky dorey as the evil EPA would have us believe.

I am far from adoring big government, that's why I am a Republican and an undying proponent of states rights. BUT...the older I get and the more people I meet, I lose faith in the normal idiot

. Does this mean I want my life regulated? No. It just makes me happy that there IS some basic regulation, mostly for business. I'm ALREADY tired of them raggin' on cars, just saying that they do pollute, because some morons STILL refuse to admit that they do (trust me, I'm enrolled with some

)

And yes, many corparations WOULD pollute mindlessly if there were no regulation (anyone remember Love Canal??) Evidenced by the many "grandfathered" in power plants that have yet to meet what I would consider just decent standards (not EPA fluff BS). If you are telling me you think businesses would spend extra money to clean up instead of on increased production on their own accord, I wish I could agree.

You just seemed to have missed the ENTIRE point of my crummy paper, which was to wake people up to the fact that NOT everything (most) the media tells us is true. Recycling does NOT save the world. and catalytic converters don't either. This thread was NOT intended to become some political argument, just to remind everyone not to believe everything they hear...

Mustangbelle306 · 04-09-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ponycar_302

I agree. For example, my best friend's bone stock 90 Mustang GT runs low 11's in the quarter mile. I haven't provided any proof to back up my claim. You can't prove me wrong because you have never seen it or been there. Chances are pretty good you don't believe me though, and now my credability is shot to hell. Cite your sources.

All in all it's a good article. It's informative, easy to comprehend, and just interesting enough to keep reading until the end. Be ready to defend it though. You have written a biased article in your view, and others will definately want you to hear theirs. You seem to have done quite well already here, but remember, we LIKE you.

For the record:
I agree with you.
I hate the EPA.
I have no cats on my car.
I know cigarettes cause lung cancer.
And finally, see sig....

JESUS ITS A CLASS PROJECT that does NOT necessarily reflect my personal views. It DOES in the sense that I feel that the media builds up these environmental saviors to be something that they are not. And that in this SAVING frenzy, some of the facts get lost and confused.

THAT IS WHAT THE PAPER IS ABOUT. THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

It was NOT supposed to deal with the founding/mentality/EXISTENCE of the EPA, human rights, politics, toilets, or what the **** ever its now been twisted into...it wasn't even formal as I stated in the first line!!!

Sorry if I'm getting upset, but I just thought it would be something nice to post and get people thinking about the bias of the media (not ME) versus the (possible) truth. I don't think any of you are attacking me personally or my writing, but I get upset when my intentions are misterpreted.

Mr 5 0 · 04-09-2002, 05:28 PM

Mustangbelle:

Sorry if you feel beseiged. Speaking of intentions, I didn't intend to turn the thread controversial or put you in a position of defending big government. I respect (and share) your Republicanism, as you probably know by now.

As I originally stated, the paper you wrote was fine. I gave it an 'A' as you'll recall. I simply used it as a jumping -off point to expound my (mostly negative) views of government agencies and the EPA in particular. Perhaps I did miss the point somewhat in my zeal to attack big government. Sorry about that.

I'm aware that you were trying to make the point that catalytic converters aren't the anti-pollution panacea they were once touted to be by the EPA and NHTSA but the EPA is where you got a lot of the negative 'findings' about the problems and I wanted to point out that - in my view - the EPA is not automobile-friendly and when they find all this deadly stuff coming from catalytic converters, I'm suspicious of both the science and the motives.

Saying so is not a crime and as you noted, I'm not critical of you or your paper, although we obviously do have some areas of disagreement regarding pollution and corporate responsibility. So what?

Rather than be frustrated, I would hope you would be pleased that you received a lot of attention for the essay and that it's generated a lot of discussion, so far. That's a compliment, not a criticism.

Enjoy the thread's exposure and participate - or not - but remember that on a public messageboard, you cannot control the responses you receive, pro or con. I know from experience.

Appreciate your responses and I hope you'll not consider mine as anything other than an expression of one man's opinion, with no greater weight than anyone else's, of course. Just discussion, no more. I find it stimulating and I don't post in bumper-sticker terms so forgive my verbosity.

I still distrust government agencies.

Tony Frank · 04-09-2002, 06:26 PM

OMG here we go again with Mr. 5.0,

First off Belle nicely written paper. you recieve an A.

2nd, Mr 5.0 you said you give the paper an A, then you said you had a problem with the premise......then a long list of things of things that you say are wrong or you disagree with, therefore if you were the teacher, with the list given of complaints, that wouldnt be an A.
if you wanna get technical like you insisted on.

3rd, why do you insist on being so technical........in your thread you said, "Well, we disagree on the motivations of the EPA then. So be it. "

YOU SAID IT YOURSELF "SO BE IT" let it go, dont start an argument.

if it makes you feel far more superior then do it.

P.S. 20 bucks says mr 5.0 starts a flame over this one with me......

just watch

silver_pilate · 04-09-2002, 06:59 PM

Quote:

2nd, Mr 5.0 you said you give the paper an A, then you said you had a problem with the premise......then a long list of things of things that you say are wrong or you disagree with, therefore if you were the teacher, with the list given of complaints, that wouldnt be an A.

Ok Tony...there's nothing wrong with what Jim said in his post about giving Belle an A but disagreeing with the premise. Guess what. There's this thing called freedom of speech. It applies to our schools as well. If you are given an assignment in which you are allowed to choose the topic, it doesn't matter if the teacher agrees with your premise or not. If it's done properly and you did a successful job of defending your position, it's an A. Mr 5.0's "grade" to Belle dealt with the quality of the work, not the subject matter.

Second, if you don't know what Mr 5.0's style is by now, you need to spend some more time on the boards. It's in his style to go deep into topics, and I know myself and others appreciate this. Sure, Jim is an opinionated person. So am I. At least he stands true to what he believes and is consistant in his discussions. In my opinion, if you hold certain things to be true, yet you cannot defend your stance in a simple debate, what is it that you really believe? Is it just something that you've been told? Or did you just make it up? I know from his posts that Jim has put a lot of critical thought into his stance on issues. What's wrong for him to express his opinions and defend them in front of others.

I don't see Mr. 5.0 as starting an argument. He's just openly discussing his views, much as I and others on this board have done.

Belle,

I appologize if I misinturpreted the original intention of your post. I didn't mean to turn you on the defensive. It's a good paper with a good premise and presents a nice flip on a topic we usually only hear the other side on.

Jim,

I have no doubt that you can adequately defend yourself, and I appologize if I stole any of your thunder.

Come on people....this is a general discussion board. Let's allow general discussion.

--nathan

Mr 5 0 · 04-09-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony Frank

OMG here we go again with Mr. 5.0...
20 bucks says mr 5.0 starts a flame over this one with me...... just watch

You lose.

Mustangbelle306 · 04-09-2002, 07:14 PM

OMG...you people don't even bother to read long posts do you?

First my quoting of sources is skipped over, and then I've already said I'm NOT defensive of my paper, or that someone doesn't agree with me. You must obviously have mistaken me for someone that cares.

I was just pissy because my point was to share something I found interesting, and that you'll probably never hear on the news, etc. It wasn't meant to be a political war or a lame argument, but yes, I can't control who bastardizes what thread to what extent, and so on. That's all.

04-08-2002, 11:34 PM	#1
Mustangbelle306 Yay for Chickys Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,532	Catalytic Converters and the EPA. Here is an interesting paper I composed for my Environmental class. The assignment was to write an editorial for a newspaper, so please excuse the colloquial writing, it was supposed to appeal to even the stupidest citizens that can manage to hold a paper Enjoy! This Cat’s a Bit “Hot” Under the Collar What type of cat causes pollution when cold, attempts to work when hot, and is hazardous to your health? If you own an automobile, you most likely have one in your exhaust system. A catalytic converter (commonly referred to as a “cat”) is a pollution-control device that has been required on most vehicles in the USA since the mid 1980s. Housed within a protective metal structure, the interior honeycomb design is coated with platinum and rhodium. These catalysts speed up the oxidation reactions to convert harmful exhaust gases (carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons) into less toxic substances (water and carbon dioxide gas). Once touted as the savior of the gasoline engine, the cat has proven much less effective than once expected. Scientific studies have proven that cats emit toxic substances that cause fatal respiratory diseases in humans, including lung cancer. Some of these gases include cyanide and cyanic acid, hydrogen-sulfur, and phosgen (which was utilized in World War I as a combat gas). These substances are NOT produced by the engine, but rather by the cats themselves. Another suspected side effect is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). As cases began emerging in America in the late 1980s (following the introduction of cats), it is very likely that chemical reactions occurring in the cat account for the massive onset of CFS. Similar trends have also been documented in Japan, Australia, and some parts of Europe after introduction of cat-equipped vehicles. In addition to health related side effects, cats also pose a threat to the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cats have been identified as a large contributor to global warming. The cats can rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas). The EPA published a study estimating that nitrous oxide now comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Cars and trucks fitted with cats produce nearly half of that amount. The EPA calculated that production of nitrous oxide from vehicles rose by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 1996 (older, non-cat cars were for the most part obsolete). Although the automotive industry has come a long way in producing more environmentally sound products, much improvement is still required in order to secure a better future. Now that we know the problem, what do we do about it? As a citizen you should be concerned about your environment, and as a consumer (emissions equipment accounts for 2% of a car’s MSRP) you should insist on an effective product for your money. Essentially, the catalytic converter was an attempt to trade one evil for a lesser-known evil (smog for health issues and global warming). As we learn more about the effects of our technological advances, we must continue to improve our preventative techniques, and the public must be part of that forward movement. I was thinking about sending that in to MMFF mail or something...think its worth it?

04-09-2002, 12:00 AM	#2
tireburner163 It's a lot like a race car Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Meridian, MS Posts: 4,130	Yes it is good enough. Now I'm glad I'm gonna remove my cats __________________ 1987 Buick T-type 1998 HD Electra Elide

04-09-2002, 09:19 AM	#4
tireburner163 It's a lot like a race car Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Meridian, MS Posts: 4,130	no belle they are only 20's __________________ 1987 Buick T-type 1998 HD Electra Elide

04-09-2002, 09:41 AM	#5
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Catalytic converter myths Mustangbelle: The piece is fine, nicely written. I would give it an 'A'. My problem is with the premise. I don't believe much of anything the EPA says, especially when it comes to 'global warming', a scientific phantom that the enviro-nuts use to ban anything they don't like, especially the automobile. Factual observations: Sources for the 'scientific studies' that show catalytic converters can cause lung cancer? I'm sure they exist, you just need to name them for credibility. I believe that catalytic converters were required on all cars manufactured in the U.S. starting in 1975, not the mid-80's. Personal observations: Yes, the catalytic converter may have flaws and problems, but the people knocking it are NOT seeking to eliminate the cat, that's just a trojan horse. They want to eliminate cars that run on gasoline which they see as killing the planet and people. I strongly disagree. These folks (like the EPA bureaucrats) want us to drive little electric cars that 'don't pollute'. They also don't go very far, very fast, either, but to the EPA loonies, that is your car of the future, so get used to it. In my considered opinion, screw them. U.S.-manufactured vehicles pollute only a tiny amount but as the statements you quoted in your essay showed, the enviromental loonies can find danger and death everywhere when it comes to automobiles - which they hate with a passion. What I think they dislike so much isn't the so-called 'pollution' (that's a front) but the freedom for the individual the personal gasoline-powered automobile offers. Try hopping in your electric car-of- the-future for a nice cruise on Friday night. Somehow, it won't be the same (you can't go far or fast) and that's how the enviro-whackos want it. No fast cars, no racing, no freedom. All for our own good and to 'save the planet' of course. Hmmmm. So Belle, although you wrote a good essay I have to part company with the premise that finds every other heath problem stemming from catalytic converters, because it's basically unproven and in my opinion is just another way to say 'Cars Pollute...we're all gonna die' and call for banning the gasoline engine. If you doubt it, read some EPA and other enviro-whacko lliterature (I have) and you see that in their view, the gasoline engine can never be made 'safe' enough. Electric cars are the 'only' solution. If possible, bicycles would be even better. As for sending it to MM&FF, I have a feeling they would give you the same response but hey, why not? See what happens.

04-09-2002, 10:30 AM	#7
Crazy Horse GT Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sale Creek, TN. C. S. A. Posts: 4,652	just a kinda short comment belle, i agree that cat's suck, when they get stopped up your car wont run worth a crap, plus they gag you to death with the fumes i usually take a straight rod & bust up all the sh-- inside & shake it out. __________________ 95 gt vert, lot's of stuff, it aint slow. 04 sonic blue v - six my beater 89 rs camaro iroc turbo hood, other stuff, my wifes ride 84 lx stang cammed up 289 hi po, etc 65 falcon, maybe by the year 2020. black 00gt, gone but never forgotten. R H C- member # 1 o.b.c. da prez- member # 1 if your under 40 dont ask. goodbye for now odie,r.i.p. 11-27-03

04-09-2002, 12:03 AM	#3
Mustangbelle306 Yay for Chickys Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,532	Are those 22s on your 2.3L?

04-09-2002, 10:23 AM	#6
Mustangbelle306 Yay for Chickys Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,532	I included all my sources when I submitted it to my professor, didn't think it would be necessary on this site.. Also, the EPA article did not entirely push for the use of electric cars. The premise of the article was to reinvent the cat to burn cleaner at idle, when a staggering amount of the pollution and harmful fumes are emitted...Although I don't disagree that the EPA would be in favor of electic cars, I don't think their catalytic converter argument is concerning that part of their usually skewed agenda, however I do see how it could be linked I don't always find fault with the EPA, just with some of their narrow minded policies concerning automobiles. I know that had it not been formed, industry would probably still be using older cheaper technology with NO environmental regulations, and our car show summers would probably have more Code Red days then we already do. My disagreement with their automobile policies is why I have chosen the field I'm currently enrolled in...would be nice to try to make a change, as overly optimistic as that may sound.

04-09-2002, 12:16 PM	#10
silver_pilate DURKA DURKA!! Join Date: Sep 1997 Location: Lubbock, TX...(TX panhandle) Posts: 1,418	Belle, It was a very well written piece. I enjoyed reading it. I'm not cutting the article in any way here, but in order to add credibility to your arguments, you must do like Mr 5.0 suggested and cite specific sources if you were to submit this piece for publication. Also, as far as sources go, in the scientific realm (which is where I have spent the majority of my time in education and career), sources are meticulously scrutinized. If there are any weaknesses in your presentation or your sources of information, they will find it and pick the article apart. In order for a source to be considered valid to anyone of scientific mind who happens to read the article, it must come from a peer reviewed literature of some sort. These sources typically provide the most controlled and objective studies. Journal articles can be great sources of information if the studies were done properly. And don't think they won't look up your sources. They will, and if the study is weak, not done properly, or statistically inconclusive, they will tear it apart. Further, published book or even school textbooks are not sufficient sources of scientific data (unless they scite specific studies, in which case you need to look up the study and cite it as the source). It's funny that all you need to do in order to get a book...even a school textbook published is provide the publisher with incentive for profit. There is no peer review or standards held. Reguardless, like I said before, good job on the article. It would be a good piece for a paper or circular of some sort. Just remember, if you want to present a really powerful argument on your case, make sure your sources are iron clad. This way your article will stand in the face of criticism and will present a scientifically sound and persuasive argument. --nathan __________________ '91 GT, Coast 347, 9.5:1 compression, full intake, Wolverine 1087 cam, exhaust, Keith Craft ported Windsor Jr. Irons (235 cfm intake, 195 cfm exhaust), AOD, PI 3500 converter, Lentech valve body, 3.73's (4.10's in the works), and Yokohama ES100's out back. Daily Car: '04 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6MT

04-09-2002, 01:27 PM	#11
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	More cats Mustangbelle306: Well, we disagree on the motivations of the EPA then. So be it. I find them to be doing whatever they can to restrict human activity - especially automobile use - and blame humanity for anything and everything that might possibly have any environmental impact, which turns out to be just about everything, including the infamous 'cow flatulance'/methane gas 'problem' they 'found' that made them look like idiots a few years ago. I see the EPA agenda to be that of ursurping personal freedom by imposition of regulations - which they are very good at. Regulation is fine when it can be proven to be necessary, but not from unelected bureaucrats hiding behind titles in some EPA cubbyhole in D.C. These things should be voted on by our representatives in Congress, not simply imposed on the nation at will by a federal agency, giving us no say in the matter. More like rule by fiat than democracy and I can't defend it, as you seem able to do. Example: Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to determine how much water my toilet bowl can hold and what the flush rate (water flow) should be? Nowhere, of course, but we now have such a federal, nationally-imposed regulation on toilets. For our own good, of course. Right. Sure, the EPA does some good but they stay in business and get their budgets funded by always finding some enviromental 'problem' to be addressed. Constantly. Cars are a common target. Always will be, too. Everybody owns one, the automakers have billions and since no car is truly pollution-free, they can always find a 'problem' to address. It'll never end and I get tired of it. Give it a few years and you might, too. I'm unable to share your faith in big government agencies to 'help' Americans, especially the EPA. I also do not find it necessary to apologize for being human and by being human to aid in spreading 'pollution' throughout the land every time I drive or do much of anything. That's bull. Third world countries might pollute unnecessarily but in America, we've cleaned up a lot and this country is far better than it ever was a hundred or even fifty years ago in terms of pollution, corporate and personal. We have no need to apologize to the EPA about 'waste' or pollution. We've addressed the problem and will continue to do so. The liberal mindset of the EPA that assumes both private citizens and corporations will pollute like maniacs without the wise men at a government agency to stop them is insulting and wrong, in my opinion. So, we part company on the value, the motives and agenda of the EPA, Belle. You still wrote a good essay, no need to be defensive. It's the EPA I have problems with, not catalytic converters or you.

04-09-2002, 05:28 PM	#16
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Cats, politics and the EPA Mustangbelle: Sorry if you feel beseiged. Speaking of intentions, I didn't intend to turn the thread controversial or put you in a position of defending big government. I respect (and share) your Republicanism, as you probably know by now. As I originally stated, the paper you wrote was fine. I gave it an 'A' as you'll recall. I simply used it as a jumping -off point to expound my (mostly negative) views of government agencies and the EPA in particular. Perhaps I did miss the point somewhat in my zeal to attack big government. Sorry about that. I'm aware that you were trying to make the point that catalytic converters aren't the anti-pollution panacea they were once touted to be by the EPA and NHTSA but the EPA is where you got a lot of the negative 'findings' about the problems and I wanted to point out that - in my view - the EPA is not automobile-friendly and when they find all this deadly stuff coming from catalytic converters, I'm suspicious of both the science and the motives. Saying so is not a crime and as you noted, I'm not critical of you or your paper, although we obviously do have some areas of disagreement regarding pollution and corporate responsibility. So what? Rather than be frustrated, I would hope you would be pleased that you received a lot of attention for the essay and that it's generated a lot of discussion, so far. That's a compliment, not a criticism. Enjoy the thread's exposure and participate - or not - but remember that on a public messageboard, you cannot control the responses you receive, pro or con. I know from experience. Appreciate your responses and I hope you'll not consider mine as anything other than an expression of one man's opinion, with no greater weight than anyone else's, of course. Just discussion, no more. I find it stimulating and I don't post in bumper-sticker terms so forgive my verbosity. I still distrust government agencies.

04-09-2002, 06:26 PM	#17
Tony Frank Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Brooklyn originally, but Grand Rapids now Posts: 309	OMG here we go again with Mr. 5.0, First off Belle nicely written paper. you recieve an A. 2nd, Mr 5.0 you said you give the paper an A, then you said you had a problem with the premise......then a long list of things of things that you say are wrong or you disagree with, therefore if you were the teacher, with the list given of complaints, that wouldnt be an A. if you wanna get technical like you insisted on. 3rd, why do you insist on being so technical........in your thread you said, "Well, we disagree on the motivations of the EPA then. So be it. " YOU SAID IT YOURSELF "SO BE IT" let it go, dont start an argument. if it makes you feel far more superior then do it. P.S. 20 bucks says mr 5.0 starts a flame over this one with me...... just watch __________________ Grand Valley State University Senior Accounting and Finance Major 1985 Mustang GT 19,000 ORIGINAL miles, E-303 cam, edelbrock performer RPM intake, holley 600 cfm carb, MAC headers, windage tray, 8.8 rear end with 4.10 gears, 4"cowl hood, 5lug conversion, 04 Mach1 wheels. http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?1501

04-09-2002, 07:14 PM	#20
Mustangbelle306 Yay for Chickys Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,532	OMG...you people don't even bother to read long posts do you? First my quoting of sources is skipped over, and then I've already said I'm NOT defensive of my paper, or that someone doesn't agree with me. You must obviously have mistaken me for someone that cares. I was just pissy because my point was to share something I found interesting, and that you'll probably never hear on the news, etc. It wasn't meant to be a political war or a lame argument, but yes, I can't control who bastardizes what thread to what extent, and so on. That's all.