Gasoline polution

[PitbullMidwest]

Re: Forgot to mention

<font color=blue>...rather than Fine Iowa Corn alcohol</font color=blue>

/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif/w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif/w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[TerryinMD]

Re: Forgot to mention

The EPA recommended the use of MTBE a few years back. It's coming back to haunt them. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

EPA - worthless pieces o' ..........

Terry

 

[Timd]

Re: Forgot to mention

It just amazes me that the EPA is worried about pressure treated lumber when MBTE leaks are polluting about 10% of the wells around here...

Timd

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Re: Forgot to mention

<font color=red>It just amazes me that the EPA is worried about pressure treated lumber when MBTE leaks are polluting about 10% of the wells around here...</font color=red>

Although I certainly don't have a desire to defend the EPA, or any other government agency's priorities, it is possible that it is rational to be more concerned about pressure treated wood than about MBTE. The wood is treated by injection of known poisons, although in amounts very unlikely to hurt anyone. For MTBE, a "Blue Ribbon Panel" studied the problem, after first deciding that it wasn't its function to analyze if there were any negative health effects of MBTE. Since it has been reported that MBTE in sufficient quantity might cause water to smell or taste a bit funny, the Panel went on to propose all sorts of remediation. Of course, MBTE was put in the gasoline in the first place to try to meet clean air standards.
Although we all would just as soon not have gasoline leaking out of tanks and getting into the drinking water, does anyone have a reference to any study that actually concludes that MBTE poses any danger to anyone?

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Forgot to mention

Best info I know of on MTBE health effects. Nobody really knows much. Wasn't the first documented ground water MTBE contamination in 1996? You'll notice that CDC hasn't updated their document since 1997.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts91.html>http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts91.html</A>

 

[Chuck52]

Re: Forgot to mention

That EPA link I posted earlier has links to just about all that's known about MTBE. The bottom line is you don't want it in your water whether or not there is a known health hazard. I've been on the receiving end of some pretty silly EPA rulings, but you really do have to step back and look at the whole picture. We all want clean air. We all want clean water. How do we get there without doing away with all the other things we also all want that give us the life style we desire? Apparently ethanol doesn't work as well as MTBE in reducing some emissions from IC engines, but perhaps the balance of toxicity vs function still favors ethanol. I'm really afraid the bottom line is that as long as we are dependent on IC engines, we're going to have these problems. I keep hoping that a real breakthrough in fuel cell design will occur. Wouldn't it be nice at some time in the not-so-distant future, to be able to tell the Saudis to try drinking their oil?

Chuck

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Re: Forgot to mention

Chuck:
I can't quarrel with what you say. The EPA seldom picks the right balance, and often acts on faulty information, but that's not to say I want MTBE in the water either, despite the fact there is no known human health hazard. It smells and tastes bad, and that's enough to try to get it out of the water, and then we don't have to worry about undiscovered long term effects. We also don't need another flood of litigation in which real medical or scientific evaluation is completely obliterated by the claim process.
Of course, once global warming does its work, MTBE will be broken down by the heat, and no longer a problem -- right?

 

[Chuck52]

Re: Forgot to mention

Charlie,

Agreed on all points. Unfortunately, in this imperfect world, it appears that the only way to avoid ground water contamination by MTBE or any other gasoline additive means banning such additives. There are so many potential point sources for leaks that it would be impossible to prevent them. If it is true that some such additive is required in order to reduce the airborne pollutants produced by IC engines, then we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, so long as we depend so heavilly on these beasts. Is there an innocuous additive that will perform well enough to serve the function until we have a substitute for IC engines, or until the oil runs out? I don't know. If ethanol is it, I could live with a little in my water....I often do! I guess the microbes would metabolize it first though.

Chuck

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Re: Forgot to mention

ethanol, requires fuel to work the fields and harvest along with more energy to turn corn to another fuel. It does't make sense to use more energy then you would get in return. If they can find a way to get more efficent vehicles there wouldn't be a problem but ethanol is not and will not be an answer. They are doing good with the new hybids getting 70-80 mpg and that will be their best bet but it will take a few years to work out the bugs. Ford has a new compressed air system they plan for in a few years on their trucks that will help fuel economy quite a bit and not affect pulling power for their heavy duty trucks. Later