Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

VET (Vehicle Emissions Testing)

By Terry Gray

Ms. Stutsman of the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County wrote a letter to the Jefferson Review some time back.  I E-mailed her and have yet to hear back. 

For this publication, I would like to comment on Ms. Stutsman’s letter to the JEFFERSON REVIEW link entitled, “Both Sides of the Issue on VET Testing.”

In your letter, you state as a defense to VET, the following:  “While newer model years do emit less pollution, there are more vehicles than ever being driven on our roads.”  That is obviously a true statement and an argument that would be valid if there were not the stricter emissions-reduction standards and equipment being placed on new vehicles.  The vehicles are being tested by standards that the government sets and accepts.  Don’t you work for the government?

I do not follow the “logic” of “more cars”.  You are saying that there are more cars and with more cars there is more pollution.  So far so good, but that is where the road to logic stops.  By more cars, you can only mean newer cars; we don’t make old cars anymore.  New cars are manufactured under strict guidelines of the EPA for exhaust emissions.  Quantity is only a factor in emissions because of quantity. The quality of the emissions is what must be a factor.  Do you understand?

According to your letter to the Jefferson Review, the VET is concerned with the quality of air not only for healthy adults but also for the elderly, children, and those people with respiratory ailments such as asthma.  The following comes from the Environmental Protection Agency link:  PM10.   PM10 is particulate matter.

Health and Environmental Effects: Inhalable PM includes both fine and coarse particles. These particles can accumulate in the respiratory system and are associated with numerous health effects. Exposure to coarse particles is primarily associated with the aggravation of respiratory conditions, such as asthma. Fine particles are most closely associated with such health effects as increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for heart and lung disease, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung function, and even premature death. Sensitive groups that appear to be at greatest risk to such effects include the elderly, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, such as asthma, and children. In addition to health problems, PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the United States. Airborne particles also can cause damage to paints and building materials.

Why is diesel exhaust dangerous?

Diesel exhaust is a mixture of smog-forming pollutants, particulate matter (or soot), and other toxic constituents such as arsenic, cadmium, dioxin, and mercury (CARB, 1998). Small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs, diesel exhaust particles can cause or exacerbate a wide variety of health problems, including asthma and other respiratory ailments, and have been linked to cancer and premature death.

While scientists must often conduct animal testing to extrapolate the potential impact of pollutants on humans, our urban air has unfortunately allowed researchers to measure the effects of air pollution directly. We thus have overwhelming evidence that air pollution, particularly diesel exhaust, is harmful to human health, posing even higher risks for children and other sensitive populations.

Then there is NOX from the EPA link:  Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels.

But of course you knew all of this right?  But did you know ALL of this?

NOX AND PM10 Emissions for Jefferson County from UNITED CONCERNED SCIENTISTS link:

Off highway diesel vehicles contribute 8,782 tons of Nitrogen Oxides into our air for a 27% share.  Off highway diesel vehicles contribute 554 tons of PM10 into our air for a 45% share.  Now what was the percentage of automobiles that fail the VET, less than 5%?  Amazing, isn’t it?

Let’s look at this little bit of info for you, since you are concerned with children.

School Bus Emissions. From UNITED CONCERNED SCIENTISTS link:

Diesel emissions affect all people, but children are particularly vulnerable. Outdoors more often than adults, children’s small bodies and maturing lungs experience greater exposure to harmful air pollutants. A study by the University of Southern California found that children breathing Los Angeles air experienced over four times more damage to their young lungs than children exposed to second hand cigarette smoke. A study by two environmental groups indicates that a child riding inside of a diesel school bus may be exposed to as much as four times the level of toxic diesel exhaust as someone traveling in a car directly in front of it.

"...Other side..." from the JEFFERSON REVIEW link:

While newer vehicles are less likely to fail a VET test, our program continues to test these vehicles because of concerns for equity, consumer protection and federal credits. We believe that all vehicle owners bear responsibility for cleaner air in our community.

If you have such concern for consumer protection, why aren’t all vehicles being tested?  If you have such concern for equity, why aren’t all vehicles being tested?  I think I can answer that with one statement: there are no Federal Credits issued for testing vehicles other than personal passenger vehicles.  So where does this leave concerns for equity and consumer protection? 

It sounds to me like being equitable is limited in definition for your office.  “We are going to be equitable and include everyone in our VET testing except really old cars, school buses, really big trucks, and diesel powered vehicles.”

Our air in this county is getting better but not because of VET.  We can attribute the increased air quality to attrition of older cars and newer car designs.  There are no facts supporting VET in regard to reduction of pollution.

We all try to protect our positions and careers.  However, when all indicators of VET point to a useless, foolish, and wasteful “service” it would seem that a professional of responsibility and intelligence would proudly dismiss this program for what it is.

In your article you speak of the responsibility for clean air lying with all of us.  I believe that the responsibility of adequately representing the people and individual freedoms lie with all of us as well.  The people of this county do not want VET.  We do not need VET.  We have spoken on this issue and our DULY elected representatives have heard us and responded to the wishes of the people of a Democratic society.  Do you believe that in good faith you can regard your program as more important than the Democratic process?

The citizens of this community are weary of this debacle called VET.  Let it die.

Strider1@insightbb.com

Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.
-- Ayn Rand

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN