Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="schlimm"] <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Bucyrus:</div> <div></div>   <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> henry6:</div> <div>   And where did that come from?  Stop putting words into play that aren't here. <div style="clear:both;"></div>   </div> </blockquote>   It comes from the theory of the lawsuit.  If the solid particulates of diesel exhaust including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are not allowed to be emitted in the California rail yards because they are considered to be a health hazard, then surely they should not be allowed to be emitted anywhere in the country.  I don’t know what remedy would solve the problem, but the recommendation from the environmentalists is electrification.  If it is progress in California, it would be progress in the rest of the country as well.      <div style="clear:both;"></div>   </blockquote> Your generalization is much too broad here.  It is a CA lawsuit and refers specifically to concentration of air pollution, specifically several heavy metals, in rail yards and urban areas by idling locomotives.  I may be wrong, but the metals mentioned probably do not stay airborne long enough to be a problem with diesel-powered freights traveling on mainlines outside cities.  Furthermore, and beyond the scope of the original posting, is it your contention that electrified rail lines produce greater amounts of air pollution than the alternatives?  I realize that electrification may not be a cost-effective alternative, but that would be a separate though related issue. <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] I do not know if it is too broad.  Perhaps it is too broad as a one-shot conclusion, because for now, it only involves a part of California.  But it does stand to set a precedent, which could take it down a slippery slope.  We should be aware of the big picture with this.  I understand the point about the suit being aimed at the highest concentrations, but the argument will be scalable if they win the lawsuit.   <o:p></o:p> My interpretation of the issue is that the problem being addressed is solid particulates being inhaled or ingested while they are airborne, and not a problem of them accumulating on the ground and in the soil to be somehow ingested later.  I do not know if this pertains only to idling locomotives as is mentioned in the article.  I do not know if the particulates are emitted only from idling locomotives.  If that were the case, I do not know why electrification is being offered as the remedy.   <o:p></o:p> The novelty of the theory is that the particulates are solid rather than a gas, so they can be classified as solid waste, thus making them subject into a different set of laws and regulations.  <o:p></o:p> It is not my contention that electrified railroads produce more pollution that dieselized lines.  My only objection relating to electrification is that it could be forced upon the railroads by environmental regulations, beyond what is reasonable.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag