2th pollution peak in Clermont-Ferrand

[jean63]

To be........

a few days later ................. it starts again (it is due to the anti-cyclone which prevents gases from rising in the atmosphere)



News from Auvergne 31/01/2006 - 21:42 p.m.

New peak of nitrogen dioxide pollution in Clermont-Ferrand
The level of pollution with nitrogen dioxide exceeded Tuesday evening the threshold of recommendation and information in the agglomeration of Clermont-Ferrand, reaching 245 micrograms per cubic meter of air at the station and 214 in Montferrand, announced Atmo Auvergne.

The recommendation and information threshold is set at 200 micrograms per cubic meter.

This situation reflects widespread pollution in the Clermont-Ferrand-Riom-Issoire region. The accumulation of this pollutant, mainly of automobile origin, was favored by the high pressure conditions which prevented the dispersion, according to the same source.

According to weather forecasts, the anticyclone could continue until Monday, February 6. Atmo-Auvergne does not therefore plan to improve air quality in the coming days.

A pollution peak had already been recorded Wednesday in the agglomeration, where the concentration of nitrogen dioxide had reached 293 micrograms per cubic meter.

It is recommended for frail, asthmatic or allergic people to avoid intense physical and sports activities. Road users are invited to reduce their speed or to use public transport or the caryou're upset.

2006 © AFP

[hitih]

yeah
sometimes I wonder if it’s good to drive LPG in a relatively light car when you see all the 4x4 diesel

[jean63]

Completely agree with you ..... you have an answer in MP.

[emlaurent]

In the same vein, an article from the international mail which speaks of nitrogen pollution but more generally:
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=59478&provenance=accueil&bloc=26

International Mail - Jan 27, 2006
POLLUTION - Nitrogen is more dangerous than carbon dioxide for the planet
"Take five random people from the street, chances are they will know that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Ask five other people if they know the emissions nitrogen, there is a good chance that they will remain speechless, "says the British weekly New Scientist. For an increasing number of scientists, however, nitrogen from human activities is a risk we do not know about. And if we continue like this, they insist, the consequences will be much worse than mere global warming. Human health, biodiversity, the ozone layer and the climate will be affected. And, if we thought that it was difficult to solve the problem of the ozone layer, the one that awaits us with nitrogen is much more pernicious. "The consequences of nitrogen emissions from human sources are alarming because the link with human health has been proven, a link that we do not have with CO2," said Elizabeth Holland of the National Research Center on the atmosphere (INCAR) of Boulder, Colorado.

"By presenting CO2 as the culprit of global warming, the nitrogen problem has been overlooked," continues the New Scientist. No doubt this is due to the fact that its chemical history is often more complicated. "In the gas state, nitrogen is stable and not very reactive. But, if it is oxidized or reduced, nitrogen gives molecules, of which the best known are nitrogen oxides, which can have a multitude effects on the Earth's ecosystem, the seabed and human health, "confirms James Galloway, director of the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI), based at the University of Charlottesville, Virginia. To stop the process, the nitrogen contained in these molecules must be brought back to the almost inert state. In addition, agriculture globally rejects five times more than the energy industry. However, very few governments are willing to ask their farmers to reduce their consumption of fertilizers.

"There is indeed a radical solution to the problem raised by the presence of reactive nitrogen, but it is not going to please. It is a question of giving up our consumer society altogether," says Brian Moss, professor of botany. at the University of Liverpool. "It will not be done voluntarily, but we will be forced to do so under the combined effects of climate change, the end of oil, rampant demography, the problem of economic and environmental refugees. If you are less than 30 years old today , and maybe even under 40, I think you need to be prepared for tough times, "said Brian Moss.

[jean63]

Thank you for this great info on nitrogen .....

And this is how we can go wrong, for example by continuing to bet on diesel which sends a lot of NO2 .... and a little less CO2 ............ hence the PSA optics to make a diesel-electric hybrid.

And I am not talking about the LPG that they have just broken because of exceeding CO2 emissions> 140 g / km, while it emits very little NO2 (recognized by all).

One has the impression of sailing on sight and no longer knowing where to take the problem.

[Rulian]

The problem with this article is that it tells us that NO2 is not good but it doesn't tell us why ... What does NO2 do? Is it toxic? Does it have a big greenhouse effect ?? The 2? Something else ?? We would like to know ...

Personally I find this paper very disappointing and wants to play it sensationalist ... but in the end we learned nothing ...

Bof bof ... I will rather see on the side of CITEPA for NO2 ...