Death by Ships?

Thats an amazing explanation Warus. For a man that is employed in the health and safety of building site workers??

What is also amazing is that Ive never met anyone over the age of 10 that still beleives that.

No wait .---I think he was 8

Whats Santa Claus bringing you this year Walrus.

 

May I suggest there be no further criticism of the statistical methods of the study until the commentator has actually read the study and understands the methods used. Serious researchers do not make claims like this lightly or without evidence, and their work is checked and cross-checked by other, independent expert scientists in the specific field before publication.
When some of us have had a chance to read the study in question and are sure we understand how the conclusions therein were reached, a genuine debate on the validity of the estimate can take place. Hypothesizing based on a general-media synopsis of the paper gets us no closer to understanding or solving the problem.

One of the main points of the research is that trucks and trains run on #2 diesel oil, which in the modern age is a fairly clean, refined fuel oil. In the case of modern trucks, you then add filters and converters to remove most of the nastier byproducts before they even leave the exhaust pipe. Many ships run on Bunker C and similar sludgy oils, which are really quite filthy fuels. The ship's exhaust then goes straight from combustion chamber to atmosphere with no scrubbing, filtering or other processing. So the pollutants per kilojoule of energy transmitted out the shaft, is many times greater for a modern ship diesel than for a modern truck diesel. Yes, their thermodynamic efficiency is far better, but while twice the efficiency is good for the fuel bill and the carbon dioxide production, it doesn't compensate for a few thousand times the sulphur dioxide emissions.

What we should be doing is looking for ways to clean up ships' fuel and exhaust. It's nearly impossible for anyone with scientific training to deny that pollution is a major, major problem, and that ships are a significant contributor to that problem.

 

consider the resources

5000 trucks at 400 bhp, 2000000 bhp
one ship 60000shp, trucks are stuck in traffic a good bit of the time, clog roads cause massive costs, just by virtue of the fact that we need keep building highways to run em on, factorys to build em in, and so on and so forth? in Europe most heavy and bulk stuff in barged
Besides if ships burnt light oil(diesel) who then would use the cad rich and sulphur heavy oil, I dont think you need be a scientist to understand that ships do less damage to the environment, overall Matt

 

90 percent of the world's cargo is transported by ship. Of course it will pollute, but that pollution would by multiplied many times, if transported by trains and trucks.

A little while ago, some other "research" was done, that showed that it was much better to transport goods by planes, as they pollute less (!). Yes, I'm sure it's less polluting to fly to the US in a jumbojet with 300 other people (pollution/divided by 300) than it pollutes to go 12 people by supertanker over there (pollution/12). However, look at tons of cargo, and a completely other picture will emerge.

About peer reviews: I doubt their numbers are right – it could be lower, it could be higher, but surely their numbers will be cross examined, and found to be less than ideal. How do they come up with that? I doubt that the doctor makes a test "Uhm, cause of death? I know, it's sulphur from shipping!" That is surely a lacking study, even if I do believe they're right along the way, that of course some people die from it.

This is not to say, that shipping shouldn't try to be even more enviromentally friendly, but as it is, they're already rather friendly, environmentally speaking (by ton of cargo).

 

I agree that ships push out gobs of black soot --weve all seen it. Ships generally being out in the open are well ventilated. Any one standing in that trying to breath would inhale it. Besides being a stupid thing to do,- you wouldnt do that again would you? Even if by accident you got a lung full you would'nt do it every day.

No worse that riding behind a bus on a motorbike.

Its quite likely that for the rest of the voyage they would enjoy lovely clean air --much cleaner that the rest of us in the city would be breathing.

I have not read any criticism of the statistical methods!!! My point was that ALL work kills you and every one suffers a premature death. Walking in the street will shorten your life,---everything shortens your life. Standing in a smokey room, one drink too many , Chocolate gateux oops too much wine.

Most medicines take thier toll but its worth it. EVERY one dies a premature death.

Its not the method its the result,( 60,000 people died before they should because they worked on a ship)??

Strange when they advertise a cruise on a ship to be a healthy experience with lovely fresh ocean air?? So cruising is unhealthy and shortens your life?

 

Frosty, essentially, they're extrapolating. They have a small base number, then they take that number, add some guess work, and multiply that by an x-factor.

http://www.rit.edu/news/index.php?p=experts&action=viewexpert&id=148

Edit: They're not talking about the people working on ships - then 60.000 people yearly would be extremely high. No, they're talking about premature deaths on a global basis, jobfunction irrelevant.

 

Oh great Danish--I just posted how no one had criticised the statistical method, then you go and do it?

 

Well, ye asked and ye shall receive

 

ACTUALLY THEY ONLY SMOKE AS THEY GET UP ON THE Governers. then once rpm are up they dont smoke, idf they ddi the decks would be knee deep in soot\
and great measures have been taken to keep sulphur levals downSulphur contained in the fuel forms metallic sulphides that coat the internal surfaces of the fuel injection equipment including the fuel pumps and the fuel injectors. These sulphides have low shear resistance and act as EP additives similar to that found in lubrication oils. Extremely low sulphur fuels in use on the automotive transport industry have led to the use of lubricity additives. In the marine environment the reduction in sulphur content has been less dramatic.

 

Lots of words - most missing the point. The points are -
1) is the report to be believed
Cargo boats - whether they are the most efficient, beautiful amzing things on earth, use a unique fuel - with readily identifiable 'bad stuff' like sulphur, remember "sulphur content thousands of times greater than on-road diesel fuel"
also
"University of Delaware and James Winebrake from the Rochester Institute of Technology, the study correlates the global distribution of particulate matter -black carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and organic particles - released from ships’ smoke stacks with heart disease and lung cancer mortalities in adults."
I cant see why they would be that far off the mark, and silly statements like "How can these researchers define what kills people" beggar belief.
2) Can we do anything about it ?
Well, maybe getting the fuel to a higher quality would save some poor sods from a painfull, early death. They havn't had "some guy is shoveling another lump of coal into the furnace " for 25 years, why - because it makes people sick! And as for "NAME ONE!" - you have the authors details - get 'em to read you the first 500!!

Is this some conspiracy to wind me up with bloody stupid remarks?

 

Fuel efficiency and fuel usage is not the point being discussed here. On both these counts a ship is far superior to a truck, without question.

The discussion here is about a study that looks at smog-forming and toxic/carcinogenic pollutants that directly affect human health. These include soot/particulates, sulphur compounds, etc. On these counts, ships are several orders of magnitude worse than any recently-built land vehicle, largely because they burn the contaminated refinery dregs that nobody else wants, and there are no rules telling ship owners they have to clean up the fuel. It's not impossible to clean up #4 fuel oil and Bunker C grades, but it would cost more than they spend for the raw, unprocessed fuel at present. So without anybody ordering them to do so, they take the cheapest option- burn it as is. Simplistic calculations of "x number of trucks total y times as much horsepower as a boat" ignore the carefully researched facts presented in the study, which state that the ship releases vastly more dangerous pollutants for each litre of fuel it burns.

As I understand it, the methods used in the study (it'll be published in the Dec. 15 issue of Environmental Science and Technology, the journal of the American Chemical Society) correlate the global geographic distribution of shipping-related emissions with the distribution of cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths linked to the same types of emissions. Not exactly a simple model to produce, and one that has been thoroughly vetted by independent mathematicians and researchers by the time it is published.

 

"Serious researchers do not make claims like this lightly or without evidence, and their work is checked and cross-checked by other, independent expert scientists in the specific field before publication."

Researchers work for the GRANTOR , the fellow giving out MONEY.

Look at all the "research" claiming man is responsible for global warming , which ignores 4 million years of planetary history.

Hell, even MARS is in the same warming cycle and getting warmer.
Granny's Vespa there too?

Researchers are hired to "prove" someones point , as taxi drivers are hired to take passengers to their desired destination.

Case in point is the recent UN study. Read the blither sheet written by the political class and you could actually believe in G warming.

Read the ENTIRE report and the you will get opposite conclusion , man has almost nothing to do with it.

Where are the Researchers , when the politicos intentionally LIE about the reports conclusions? Strangely absent , waiting the next cash flow.

FF

 

The day that UN report came out, Fred, Exxon offered an instant reward of around $10,000 and the promise of no-hassle full research funding for any qualified climatologist who could offer evidence to contradict the universal consensus on humanity's influence on climate change. (Exxon is currently pumping millions of dollars a year into research to deny global warming, but have yet to get an actual climatologist on board- so far they have only been able to find political lobbyists to run their think tanks.) They have so far been unable to get a single qualified researcher to bite on it, even though it's a vastly more tempting offer than the pittance of hard-to-get government funding most climatologists survive on.

The people doing the peer review before publication never work from the same money as the people who did the research. If there is a bias in the study, it is their job to send it back for re-writing. It takes over a year, sometimes more, to get a paper through this review process, because the journals simply don't want to publish anything they are not fully confident in.

If anyone is willing to assess such matters objectively, I'd be happy to put in the time to dig up whatever studies and research papers we need to have a serious discussion on what to do about these issues. If everyone is going to dig in their heels and insist that any research contradicting what we'd like to believe is just ********, we may as well just drop the matter here and I'll see you back on the boat threads.

 

you always get that here, I apologise for of all those who resort to posting the sort od thing you mentioned above, who post on personalitys, and post for the sake of posting I used to react, now I simply do not care
There are many people who will not listen to any sci study or reason, Aust USA full of em, lets just keep burnin coal til the end
i care not how many jobs are at risk in the short term, whats the use of jobs if the planet is ruined?

 

Which one is it Fred?