All that's left is tire wear, potentially a little higher due to increased typical weight of EVs and faster acceleration.
Ignores that the rest of the car tends to be light weighted, etc
Also ignores that EVs universally use low rolling resistance tires, which dissipate less energy in rolling friction and thus less energy to produce tire particulates. (Rubber is also not nearly as bad as these PAHs.)
How much difference can be made by changing the road surface? Do the quieter types of road surface also reduce the amount of tire dust?
Of course then they get washed away and end up in rivers and oceans, and we should do something about that. Probably there are a lot of low hanging fruit for that left, simply because historically nobody cared about it, apart from the inconvenience of needing to buy new tires.
EVs are a massive, massive improvement, and while I like improving stuff (or using alternatives) to reduce further downsides, I don’t think we should look a gift horse in the mouth, here.
But, if the alternative to the BEV SUV is an ICE SUV then they'll still help a lot, saving lots of money and many lives.
In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use it) is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were going to see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of vehicle as you switch to EV. If anything Americans buy up as the operating costs go down.
Even among those lower price points, the trend seems to be towards heavy SUVs/CUVs. Also, it's pretty clear that an equivalent car will be heavier as EV compared to it's ICE variant - the added weight of the batteries is a lot more than the weight saved by the electric engines. This is especially true for lighter engines with smaller displacement.
Now, of course there are some really small one or two seater EVs, but those also existed as ICEs and I don't think anything indicates that the majority of people will suddenly prefer smaller cars just because they buy an EV.
You got to try to zoom out and understand the pro/con of different options.
Good or bad, we have the society we have. I need to drive my kids to school. To do so safely, I need a large car. Would it be better to live in NYC and take the subway? Or have denser walkable communities? Sure. But in the meantime, the kids need to go to school.
> "Yu et al. [14] found that PAH-contaminated road dust in urban areas was associated with an elevated risk of cancer. They determined that the source of PAHs was a combination of biofuel and coal combustion and traffic engine emissions. Soltani et al. [12] reported high PAH concentrations in road dust near high-traffic roads. They concluded that both adults and children are vulnerable to the potential carcinogenic risk of road dust. In a meta-analysis, evidence was found of an association between PAHs and lung cancer [55]. Ramesh et al. [56] found PAHs to be related to colon cancer and breast cancer in humans, and to show high mutagenicity in laboratory animals."
By far the largest source of PAHs is diesel fuel combustion, meaning the trucking industry (which should be the primary target for replacement by EVs). See:
"Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Flames, in Diesel Fuels, and in Diesel Emissions" (2005), NIST, @ sci-hub.se
> "Diesel fuels are composed of thousands of hydrocarbon species mainly including straight-chain paraffins, naphthenes, monocyclic and polycyclic aromatic species, most with carbon numbers from 10 to 22, and some sulfur-bearing compounds. The actual distribution of species among these classes depends strongly on the refining process that is controlled in part by regional environmental regulations. The PAH species in diesel fuels represent about 1 to 3% by mass of the total hydrocarbon content. Of the numerous compounds present in diesel fuels only the PAH species are considered herein because of their direct participation in particle formation and their widely documented adverse health effects."
The most recent wisdom on lead and other urban contaminants is that white vinegar removes as much and in some cases more surface contamination than so-called vegetable soap. Particularly in the case of lead which is soluble in acids. Additionally most lead in leafy greens are surface contamination, not bioaccumulation as widely reported.
White vinegar is excessively cheap, even in food grade forms, and is good for laundry as well (especially hard water, or in the PNW where mildew on clothes is a struggle). You can find half gallons for under $4.
where's all this lead coming from, given that leaded gas was banned decades ago? I know it's still used in GA, but outside of airports I'd expect those emissions to low.
My property tested high for lead. It’s not just paint, all that car exhaust is still in the dirt next to the road in high traffic areas, and in some cases might have picked up a little more from gas powered landscaping equipment.
Born & raised in the PNW and I can't say I ever found this to be an issue. Mildew and moss growing on my car, sure. Can you expand on that any? I'm curious.
I don’t understand. Should I wash my vegetables in white vinegar before eating?
I did significant research into relative pollutants and health outcomes in NYC, and found almost zero correlation. Lung cancer was a particular concern, but it seems occurrences aren't higher in the city by any statistically significant amount. I found that to be strange; cars are everywhere in the city and most individuals live within a dozen meters of a heavily trafficked road.
If anyone has competing evidence, I'd love to read it.
Moreover, our bodies did not evolve to eliminate combustion products and micron-sized scraps of rubber and asphalt. In this case where evidence is absent, it is more than prudent to assume the worst case: no amount of pollution is good for us. In the same vein, we know that poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are carcinogenic, but does that mean we do not eat charbroiled steak? Of course not, but par for the course would be smoking a cigarette and introducing a shitload more carcinogens directly into our blood.
All of that is to say that we can probably tolerate and eliminate a low-level of exogenous pollutants entering our body, but sustained intake of pollution surely spells disaster. Then again, something's going to kill you, so pick your poison -- literally.
(Not exactly the damning evidence you're looking for, but the study below asserts causality between exogenous particulate matter infiltrating the CNS and neurological and behavioral disorders, including Alzheimer's-like symptoms and cognitive dysfunction in adults and children alike.)
Maybe also, the relative windiness of the city leads to less accumulation of road dust than you'd have in other areas? (Totally just conjecture).
Edit, found an article (Norwegian): https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/slik-loste-trondheim-problemene...
Basically they solved the issue with: washing the streets, reduce amount cars with spiked tires during winter, reduce speed of the road, switch to a more durable asphalt type, avoid using sand during winter.
https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri#Crisis_a...
>The Idle was completed in 2018, after Battista worked for years to convince city, state and national officials to OK the project. Even before it opened, it became a punchline on NPR's "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me" when a segment asked a caller to guess whether The Idle, a Karen Pence towel charm museum or a women's prisoner talent show were real. The caller didn't choose "The Idle."
From the abstract:
"Road dust was found to have harmful effects on the human body, especially on the respiratory system."
The entire conclusion:
"This literature review found studies that reported the components of road dust particles to be associated with multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and cardiovascular system. The review also found a need for a complete risk assessment of the effects of road dust on human health. We recommend a thorough meta-analysis as well as a 4-step risk assessment process, including a multi-source epidemiological study on road dust particles to identify chronic health effects, with a particular focus on PM2.5 and the inclusion of sources in both urban and rural locations."
Which of those led you to claim "it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term adverse health affects"?
