PDA

View Full Version : Eviro-Nazi / Carbon Monoxide Tests results from mem Day.



carbonmarine
06-12-2003, 08:39 AM
The data is coming in... one impact report at a time on various issues i.e Noise, Air Pollution levels, Trash, Occupational Saftey, etc...
Our Favorite place will become totally regualted.. I give it 5 year window and the place will be as tame as a shopping mall ...
Rick32 :mad:
________________________________________________
Report finds elevated levels of carbon monoxide in channel
Federal study shows 54 out of 77 city employees exceeded 'ceiling limit'
By Matthew Bunk
Preliminary results of a federal study released Wednesday indicate that spending generous amounts of time in the Bridgewater Channel when there is heavy boat traffic can lead to over-exposure to carbon monoxide.
The study report, dated June 6, involved city employees stationed in the channel during the Memorial Day holiday. Breath tests were administered to each of the employees at various times during the shifts.
Over three days of testing, 54 out of 77 employees exceeded the “ceiling limit” imposed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
On Saturday, May 24, all 24 employees tested showed levels of over-exposure to the gas at some point during their shifts.
The following Monday, when many of the boats had cleared from the lake, only one of 14 employees exceeded the limit.
A total of 40 firefighters, paramedics and police officers were tested multiple times during the three days.
NIOSH released the report earlier than expected due to inquiries by the TodayÂ’s News-Herald, said City Public Information Officer Charlie Cassens.
The city also requested “quick feedback,” the report states. NIOSH recommended that the city take action to reduce boat exhaust in the channel area during high traffic days. “Reducing the number of boats with operating engines is likely to be the only way to achieve a reduction in carbon monoxide concentrations,” it states.
The study stemmed from concerns related to past poisonings among visitors to Lake Havasu.
“The Havasu Regional Medical Center had seen four to six patients in the emergency department over the past several years who had been poisoned by their exposure to carbon monoxide in the channel,” the report states.
Lake Havasu City Council on Tuesday earmarked $13,000 to begin a public awareness campaign regarding the dangers of inhaling carbon monoxide.
Breath samples also were taken from the public during Memorial Day weekend, and air-quality monitoring will continue for at least another month.
However, those results could take months to develop, he said. And the final NIOSH results also could be months away.
The preliminary report also states: “Visitors standing submerged to their shoulders or neck for long periods of time, placing their breathing zone very near the exhaust of the passing boats, and visitors sitting on the transom or swim platform of moving boats may be exposed to much higher carbon monoxide concentrations than employees.”NIOSH, which has jurisdiction over workplace health issues, also instructed the city to:
• Develop an employee exposure-monitoring program.
• Train employees to reduce their own contact with the gas during the workday.
• Rotate employee assignments to areas where carbon monoxide exposure does not occur.
You may contact the reporter at mbunk@havasunews.com.

Sleek-Jet
06-12-2003, 08:48 AM
A friend of mine was at Powell last year in his house boat. The people beached next to him (also in a house boat) were running thier generator. A little girl in that party was floating in a tube off the end of the boat, and she died from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Not trying to say these people are right, but the comment about people being close to the water and breathing CO, should be taken seriously.
[ June 12, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Sleek-Jet ]

carbonmarine
06-12-2003, 08:56 AM
Do you let you kids play behind your running car in the drive way ?... Hell No! ... its common knowledge for gods sake... That why people start their cars in there garages and ham tunes til eeither they die or run out of fugg'in gas.....
Now if that poor girl were inside the houseboat instead of hanging out by teh tail pipe... now thats a different story that needs to be taken seriously.....
Rick32

Boozer
06-12-2003, 08:57 AM
I'd say all in all this is a pretty serious problem. There's a few reasons this concerns me.
1. If I was an employee and required to be stationed at the channel I would be seriously concerned about my health. This could have some serious long term affects on a person if they are exposed to this on a regular basis.
2. Children in the channel. A LOT of people party with their kids in the channel. The carbon monoxide is a lot worse on the kids then it is on us adults. Do you feel okay with the fact that your kid is inhaling a lot of bad crap that could potentialy cause them injury or possibly death?
What would you rather do? Run some sort of exhaust system on your boat that would make it less polutant to the air and healthier for everyone to breathe? Or would you rather run open exhaust polutte the hell out of the air and every now and then hear about a kid dying or someone else dying due to the pollution that your boat emitted? The channel is fun and through transom exhausts are fun but is the fun worth the risk of losing yourself or a loved one?
Why not devise a silent choice type exhaust system that uses a catalytic converter? This way when driving in heavily populated areas you can run a less poluting exhaust system and when you hit open water you can open it up and and make as much noise and polution as you want too?
Makes sense to me.

Sleek-Jet
06-12-2003, 09:08 AM
I was just making the point that there is a danger. Yeah, the people were dumb asses for letting thier little girl float around the back of the boat.
As for catalitic conv. on boats, I think most of them would melt a fiberglass boat.
An easy way to solve this problem would be to build alcohol motors. :D

spectratoad
06-12-2003, 09:13 AM
Maybe we should have to annualy smog our boats too. No offense Boozer but don't be a dipshit. The amount of pollution that a properly tuned engine emits is very minor. It would pass any smog test given. I keep my boat running as best as I know how and I would be willing to put it on any analyzer.
There has to be some limits on what government, city or federal, needs to regulate. I am all for if you see a boat or car emitting smoke as it runs you are off the lake or roads until it is fixed.
We need to be good to the planet but we also need to get our senses and heads screwed on straight. I was behind a bus yesterday and my kids and I could barely breathe from the exhaust. Yet everyone says take the bus and reduce pollution. :confused:
I say keep your engines tuned properly and we will be fine. :D

Boozer
06-12-2003, 09:16 AM
spectratoad:
Maybe we should have to annualy smog our boats too. No offense Boozer but don't be a dipshit. The amount of pollution that a properly tuned engine emits is very minor. It would pass any smog test given. I keep my boat running as best as I know how and I would be willing to put it on any analyzer.
There has to be some limits on what government, city or federal, needs to regulate. I am all for if you see a boat or car emitting smoke as it runs you are off the lake or roads until it is fixed.
We need to be good to the planet but we also need to get our senses and heads screwed on straight. I was behind a bus yesterday and my kids and I could barely breathe from the exhaust. Yet everyone says take the bus and reduce pollution. :confused:
I say keep your engines tuned properly and we will be fine. :D Diesel emissions are pretty gross but the emissions are heavy so they just come back down to the ground rather then being absorbed into the air. This is the reason Diesel engines are emissions exempt. Or at least this is my understanding and I could be very wrong.

Sleek-Jet
06-12-2003, 09:18 AM
Boozer:
spectratoad:
Maybe we should have to annualy smog our boats too. No offense Boozer but don't be a dipshit. The amount of pollution that a properly tuned engine emits is very minor. It would pass any smog test given. I keep my boat running as best as I know how and I would be willing to put it on any analyzer.
There has to be some limits on what government, city or federal, needs to regulate. I am all for if you see a boat or car emitting smoke as it runs you are off the lake or roads until it is fixed.
We need to be good to the planet but we also need to get our senses and heads screwed on straight. I was behind a bus yesterday and my kids and I could barely breathe from the exhaust. Yet everyone says take the bus and reduce pollution. :confused:
I say keep your engines tuned properly and we will be fine. :D Diesel emissions are pretty gross but the emissions are heavy so they just come back down to the ground rather then being absorbed into the air. This is the reason Diesel engines are emissions exempt. Or at least this is my understanding and I could be very wrong. Not for long, Diesels will soon be required to pass emissions. Jordy would probably know more about it.

Essex502
06-12-2003, 09:28 AM
There's already a movement to get catalytic convertors required for boats. The industry states that it is too dangerous to have the high temperatures that the catalytic convertor runs at inside the boat itself.
Either way, we cannot ignore the fact that the CO levels in the channel on busy days MUST be pretty high (see the photos published on this board) with the "cloud" hanging over the water. Long term effects are serious.
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning (http://health.discovery.com/diseasesandcond/encyclopedia/3282.html)
With the building that is happening along the channel the problem is only going to get worse as the structure probably hold in the CO gases. CO is lighter than air so the more open an area is the less of a build-up there will be. Maybe one possible solution is a moratorium on building along the channel.
Other link:
Chronic CO Poisoning (http://www.coheadquarters.com/ChronicCO/coSyndrome1.htm)

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 09:28 AM
A 1500 degree catalytic converter has no biz in the engine well of a boat. However, we do need to take reasonable percautions, and cont to look for ways to run cleaner. Even if it is only for the sake of keeping our sport's enemies off of our backs. Of course, reason is not their strong suit, so we must also be as politically strong as possible.
[ June 12, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

carbonmarine
06-12-2003, 09:58 AM
A moratorum on building in the channel...... ah yeah... that'll happen ... They would ban boats before that would happen......
Rick32

Ultra5150
06-12-2003, 10:40 AM
We are in Havasu every other weekend in the summer and my daughter plays with the other kids in the channel. On a normal weekend it is fine, holiday weekends is when things get out of control and we do not even cruise through the Channel on those weekends. too many pwc's and rented baots for my comfort. But there is only Memorial, Labor and 4th of July that get that bad.

Essex502
06-12-2003, 10:53 AM
carbonmarine:
A moratorum on building in the channel...... ah yeah... that'll happen ... They would ban boats before that would happen......
Rick32 When it comes to unpalatable options the governing body will have to choose...moratorium on building versus boat ban...hmmm reduced taxes from building...reduced commerce and taxes from reduced set of vacationers...ban boats on "big" weekends???....maybe but then revenues for all of the businesses would drop.
There probably is no solution that will please everyone.
[ June 12, 2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Essex502 ]

Back Forty
06-12-2003, 11:10 AM
Mercruiser is developing catalytic converters. They are fully jacketed according to one of their engineers. This is being done at the facility in Stillwater Oklahoma.

Ziggy
06-12-2003, 11:18 AM
carbonmarine:
A moratorum on building in the channel...... ah yeah... that'll happen ... They would ban boats before that would happen......
Rick32 And very possibly the buyers of these new condo's etc. may want to eliminate the boaters. Just like homeowners that buy near airports that have been there for 50 years, suddenly the air traffic is unacceptable.
I agreee that a properly tuned engine runs quite clean. I saw a few boats over Mem. that were far from running clean, one nice looking 28-30 footer struggling just to keep it idling cuz it was sooooo rich and spewing.

Seadog
06-12-2003, 11:46 AM
Something has to be done, the question is what. The pollution on the lakes may not be any worse than rush hour traffic in most cities, but the first result is going to be getting those employees into compliance with OSHA limits. With the testing results they had, they cannot afford not to take precautions. As is, their Worker's Comp is going to skyrocket. I suspect the first victim will be open exhaust and then methods to reduce and/or speed up traffic.

gnarley
06-12-2003, 12:19 PM
I remember reading somewhere in the last few months where they said that diesel exhaust was now found to be a carcinogen. At least with some diesels you can see what you don't want to breathe unlike CO.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 12:20 PM
Back Forty:
Mercruiser is developing catalytic converters. They are fully jacketed according to one of their engineers. This is being done at the facility in Stillwater Oklahoma. They are doing it because the political hacks on the C.A.R.B. are making them.
The inside will still have to be super hot for them to work. Water valves or hoses etc will fail and someday some family will have a senseless tragedy and pay more for their boat as well.
Recreational boating makes up an insigificant % of the overall air polution picture. Mandating changes (esp potentially dangerous ones) on all boaters in response to unique and isolated problems, like the one above, is just the type of insanity that only an ill informed beurocrat, politician, or nutty eco-nazi busybody could come up with. There has got to be a local solution.
[ June 12, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

spectratoad
06-12-2003, 12:29 PM
Diesel emissions are pretty gross but the emissions are heavy so they just come back down to the ground rather then being absorbed into the air. This is the reason Diesel engines are emissions exempt. So it may be a balance, diesel exhaust is heavy so it will eventually get into the water and boats have regular fumes so they pollute the air. :D
No, I totally agree. The emissions need to be kept in check but I think that the emphasis needs to be placed on the polluters. Some industry, autos that are older then a certain number of years or smoking, etc... not boats, lawnmowers, weedeaters, cows etc...
Here in Nevada diesels need to get smogged but I think it is only a smoke test. A certain percentage of light needs to be seen through the smoke I think is how it is measured.

summerlove
06-12-2003, 12:53 PM
The problem as I see it is too many boats and too small a space to accommodate everyone. Is there a solution, I don't know, but if I were Rick Almighty, I'd restrict 2 stroke engines. One hour of a jet ski creates more pollution than a car that travels a 100,000 miles. Now you PWC folks, don't jump up my a$$, I have a pair of sea doos, as well as the boat. You can see the "spew" from them anytime they travel the channel. I say no 2-stroks in the channel. Period. BTW, as I understand it, CO is lighter than air and it "floats" on the water. that is why people swimming or hanging close to the water are more succeptible to poisoining. My .02.
Rick Almighty...

Essex502
06-12-2003, 01:03 PM
summerlove - CO is lighter than air so it rises. Whether you have through prop exhaust, thru transom exhaust or over transom exhaust the CO will rise over time and disperse. With all of the boats crowded into such a small space the dispersion rate isn't quick enough to prevent CO poisoning. I would bet that EVERY boater in the channel Saturday and Sunday on Memorial Day Weekend had elevated CO levels in their blood. The worst cases probably thought they had a buzz but in fact probably were already feeling some of the effects of the poisoning.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 01:06 PM
summerlove:
The problem as I see it is too many boats and too small a space to accommodate everyone. Is there a solution, I don't know, but if I were Rick Almighty, I'd restrict 2 stroke engines. One hour of a jet ski creates more pollution than a car that travels a 100,000 miles. Now you PWC folks, don't jump up my a$$, I have a pair of sea doos, as well as the boat. You can see the "spew" from them anytime they travel the channel. I say no 2-stroks in the channel. Period. BTW, as I understand it, CO is lighter than air and it "floats" on the water. that is why people swimming or hanging close to the water are more succeptible to poisoining. My .02.
Rick Almighty... No 2 strokes huh, would you at least make an exception for the new FI OB's that are just as clean burning as your carboat's wink power plant.
[ June 12, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

Essex502
06-12-2003, 01:06 PM
Back Forty:
Mercruiser is developing catalytic converters. They are fully jacketed according to one of their engineers. This is being done at the facility in Stillwater Oklahoma. Try sitting in your garage with all of the doors closed and your engine running. CO will still be present and kill you. Catalytic converters are NOT the answer for this problem. I don't know what is but some solution will be found and we may not like the one(s) that will be proposed and/or implemented.

summerlove
06-12-2003, 01:15 PM
QUOTE]No 2 strokes huh, would you at least make an exception for the new FI OB's that are just as clean burning as your carboat's wink power plant. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I don't care for clamp-on's, but then again, if they meet the '06 emissions, then no, I don't have a problem. I just hate seeing all the 2 strok PWC's and the older OB's releasing their crap into the air and making us have to breathe it. We go to the channel to have a good time not to be poisoned...Rick

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 01:26 PM
summerlove,
If you would require OBs to meet 06 standards then, as the fair minded person you undoubtedly are, then you would use them (06 standards) for all boat's motors to use the channel.
Now that you have resolved that. Would this restriction be all the time :confused: or just for the problem weekends, that actually matter?
[ June 12, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

Seadog
06-12-2003, 01:27 PM
Actually Essex502, a modern car, in tune, running in a garage, will not kill someone in 9 out of 10 cases. When they do, it is because of oxygen depletion, not CO2 poisoning. Would I try to prove this, no, but it goes to show how much they have reduced the CO2 levels.
Until someone develops a practical way to reduce CO2 in boats, the only solution is reduction in numbers and/or emission testing.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 01:36 PM
Seadog:
Actually Essex502, a modern car, in tune, running in a garage, will not kill someone in 9 out of 10 cases. When they do, it is because of oxygen depletion, not CO2 poisoning. Would I try to prove this, no, but it goes to show how much they have reduced the CO2 levels.
Until someone develops a practical way to reduce CO2 in boats, the only solution is reduction in numbers and/or emission testing. We are not talking about CO2. We are talkijng about CO. Very different. Entirely differnt phsiological effects and much harder to control than CO2.
"CO poisioning" is basically, lack of oxygen. Or more specifically, lack of usable oxygen, since CO forms a perminant and thus unusable bond with hemoglobin.
[ June 12, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

Boozer
06-12-2003, 01:42 PM
eliminatedsprinter:
Seadog:
Actually Essex502, a modern car, in tune, running in a garage, will not kill someone in 9 out of 10 cases. When they do, it is because of oxygen depletion, not CO2 poisoning. Would I try to prove this, no, but it goes to show how much they have reduced the CO2 levels.
Until someone develops a practical way to reduce CO2 in boats, the only solution is reduction in numbers and/or emission testing. We are not talking about CO2. We are talkijng about CO. Very different. Entirely differnt phsiological effects and much harder to control than CO2. He use CO2 as the refference but i think he meant to say CO. CO2 isnt exactly a problem if it were then youd hear about kids dying from CO2 inhalation after slamming a 20 oz coca cola.

Essex502
06-12-2003, 01:46 PM
Seadog:
Actually Essex502, a modern car, in tune, running in a garage, will not kill someone in 9 out of 10 cases. When they do, it is because of oxygen depletion, not CO2 poisoning. Would I try to prove this, no, but it goes to show how much they have reduced the CO2 levels.
Until someone develops a practical way to reduce CO2 in boats, the only solution is reduction in numbers and/or emission testing. I would disagree with you...the last numbers I saw were that AFTER passing through the catalytic converter, 0.4% of the exhaust was CO. 0.0% oxygen. Air is roughly 20% oxygen. Blood absorbs CO at a rate great than 200X that of oxygen. A 0.16% level of CO in air will result in death within 1 to 2 hours. Without doing the math it seems that you WILL die before the car stops do to the lack of oxygen. Although, you would have to factor into the equation the size of the engine and the size of the garage.

summerlove
06-12-2003, 01:51 PM
eliminatedsprinter:
summerlove,
If you would require OBs to meet 06 standards then, as the fair minded person you undoubtedly are, then you would use them (06 standards) for all boat's motors to use the channel.
Now that you have resolved that. Would this restriction be all the time :confused: or just for the problem weekends, that actually matter? Thanks for recognizing my fair-mindedness! wink
Actually, PWC's are restricted on many lakes and rivers. While I don't like the idea of governmental restruction any more than anyone else, I do acknowledge a problem when one exists. I believe that PWC and older OB's do emit more pollutants than regular inboard engines, strictly based on the fact of how they work - oil burns with fuel, etc. Again, if I were Rick Almighty, I'd start with restricting over the major holiday weekends. They close the sandbar for safety purposes don't they? Why not restrict the channel and prohibit pwc's/2-strokes during those times. It will make it much safer and enjoyable for everyone that is there. My .02 BTW, I'd think that everyone would want to make the channel a safer place to be? Two confirmed deaths due to CO and we shouldn't do anyting but bury our heads in the sand? I don't think so, this is a real problem. Something needs to be done, I don't know what it is, I only have opinions. Rick

Boozer
06-12-2003, 01:52 PM
What is that rate BEFORE a catalytic converter?

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 01:55 PM
eliminatedsprinter:
Seadog:
Actually Essex502, a modern car, in tune, running in a garage, will not kill someone in 9 out of 10 cases. When they do, it is because of oxygen depletion, not CO2 poisoning. Would I try to prove this, no, but it goes to show how much they have reduced the CO2 levels.
Until someone develops a practical way to reduce CO2 in boats, the only solution is reduction in numbers and/or emission testing. We are not talking about CO2. We are talkijng about CO. Very different. Entirely differnt phsiological effects and much harder to control than CO2.
"CO poisioning" is basically, lack of oxygen. Or more specifically, lack of usable oxygen, since CO forms a perminant and thus unusable bond with hemoglobin. Boozer,
CO2 IS what has been recently regulated and reduced. It is what the "Global Warming" chicken littles have been cackeling about.

Boozer
06-12-2003, 01:56 PM
Carbon Dioxode causes global warming??

Essex502
06-12-2003, 01:58 PM
The laster numbers I saw were Uncatalyst Car=1.0% CO of the exhaust Catalyst=0.4% both are percent by volume.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 01:59 PM
Boozer:
What is that rate BEFORE a catalytic converter? Catalytic converters don't effect CO. They reduce hydrocarbons.

KrazyKa
06-12-2003, 02:01 PM
I think all these ideas on cleaning up emmisions are a little pre-mature.
1) Are you willing to change emmission regs JUST so you can sit in Lake Havasu Channel??
2) Even if emmisions were cleaned up significantly would it bring the air quality within OSHA guidelines?
Why even start the discussion of conceding emmision regs while there are so many factors that remain unknown? If it really is that unhealthy in the channel, the City (who we know own the land/water due to the recent tax fiasco)has legal liability for everyone who uses the facilities. With that kind of liability there are few positives to keep the channel open to boats. Just my 2 cents on the matter, though.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 02:20 PM
Essex502:
The laster numbers I saw were Uncatalyst Car=1.0% CO of the exhaust Catalyst=0.4% both are percent by volume. I'd like to see how those figures were obtained. Because CCs were not designed to reduce CO. They were made to reduce hydrocarbons. A reduction in CO my be a secondary effect of more complete burning, but it should not be that much.
Shoot, even propane and natural gas can produce dangerous levels of CO. It is a product of all burning. The 2 deaths mentioned here were the result of playing near the involved boats transoms and too near the exhaust pipes. This is dangerous no matter what type of internal combustion engine you are running and no matter how new or smog regulated it is.
[ June 12, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

CA Stu
06-12-2003, 02:39 PM
Not to be an idiot, but why not make the Channel a "One Way Street"?
Lots of the gas is burned when some dingus blocks traffic, and the rest of the people have to idle around them, back up, etc, etc...
CA Stu

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 02:52 PM
Gang, we are confusing our issues here. :confused: CO is not smog, or CO2. Smog levels have little to do with CO. Smog controls have little effect on it. The elevated CO levels on mem day are a product of the congestion and the sheer number of internal combustion engines running in a small area for an extended time. Any real solution to this will have to be directed at the amount of traffic in the channel. Regulating the types and age etc of the motors involved will probably not have that much of an effect.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 02:58 PM
CA Stu:
Not to be an idiot, but why not make the Channel a "One Way Street"?
Lots of the gas is burned when some dingus blocks traffic, and the rest of the people have to idle around them, back up, etc, etc...
CA Stu Now we're on the right track. This is the best type of suggestion :D :D :D :D Thanks :cool:
[ June 12, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

CA Stu
06-12-2003, 03:18 PM
If it was a "One Way Street" with the traffic flowing the same direction as the prevailing wind direction, I reckon the boats would pretty much just sit in their own emissions all the way through and take it with them on the way out? :)
CA Stu
PS Now, how do we stop all the peeing in the Channel? wink

91nordic29
06-12-2003, 03:42 PM
i agree with the one way idea for reasons other than pollution.

Dave C
06-12-2003, 04:03 PM
When did the channel move to California? So what are they saying, boat emissions create Carbon dioxide? DUH!!!!!
Don't you see what they are doing here. Pretty soon boats not fitting someone's arbitrary definition of what is acceptable will be banned.
They pull this nonsense in Kalifornia all the time. Pretty soon you won't be able to drive a car into San Francisco because they will be banned.

eliminatedsprinter
06-12-2003, 04:04 PM
The eco-nazis will try to use this, combined with junk science, and twisted logic to baloney slice away our use of the waterways. They will try to target certain types of boats or motors one at a time in a baloney slicing type of tactic. Lets not fall for it. It is the high traffic and congestion at this particular place and time that MAY pose a health risk for some. Do not let this become an excuse for singling out PWCs or OBs, or high performance boats, etc...
As Ben Franklin said "we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately".

Danhercules
06-12-2003, 05:00 PM
THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Child sucking exahust from car out of garden hose has carbon monoxide in body!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thats all I have to say about that!

Seadog
06-13-2003, 05:50 AM
1. I meant Carbon Monoxide instead of Carbon Dioxide. Sorry, but I have been doing some testing with CO2 lately and was in the habit of putting the 2 on.
2. For proper breathing, you require a mixture of 18-23% oxygen. If the oxygen level goes much below 18%, you will pass out and die. I wish I had the data available, but I read somewhere that they had found that in most modern cars, you could not commit suicide by sitting in a running garaged car, because the car would run out of gas by the time the levels built up to be hazardous.
3. Which would you prefer, a workable solution or an outright ban? Eliminate the traffic jams and those that just sit and idle or rap their engines and you eliminate most of the problem. The evidence shows that status quo will not work any more. Be proactive to help find a solution and you make friends of those who have to work the area and the community. Better a small sacrifice among friends than a short term win that makes an enemy for life.

Essex502
06-13-2003, 06:12 AM
eliminatedsprinter:
Essex502:
The laster numbers I saw were Uncatalyst Car=1.0% CO of the exhaust Catalyst=0.4% both are percent by volume. I'd like to see how those figures were obtained. Because CCs were not designed to reduce CO. They were made to reduce hydrocarbons. A reduction in CO my be a secondary effect of more complete burning, but it should not be that much.
Shoot, even propane and natural gas can produce dangerous levels of CO. It is a product of all burning. The 2 deaths mentioned here were the result of playing near the involved boats transoms and too near the exhaust pipes. This is dangerous no matter what type of internal combustion engine you are running and no matter how new or smog regulated it is. Modern 3-way Catalytic Converters work in the following manner:
The Reduction Catalyst
The reduction catalyst is the first stage of the catalytic converter. It uses platinum and rhodium to help reduce the NOx emissions. When an NO or NO2 molecule contacts the catalyst, the catalyst rips the nitrogen atom out of the molecule and holds on to it, freeing the oxygen in the form of O2. The nitrogen atoms bond with other nitrogen atoms that are also stuck to the catalyst, forming N2. For example:
2NO => N2 + O2 or 2NO2 => N2 + 2O2
The Oxidization Catalyst
The oxidation catalyst is the second stage of the catalytic converter. It reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by burning (oxidizing) them over a platinum and palladium catalyst. This catalyst aids the reaction of the CO and hydrocarbons with the remaining oxygen in the exhaust gas. For example:
2CO + O2 => 2CO2
But where did this oxygen come from?
The Control System
The third stage is a control system that monitors the exhaust stream, and uses this information to control the fuel injection system. There is an oxygen sensor mounted upstream of the catalytic converter, meaning it is closer to the engine than the converter is. This sensor tells the engine computer how much oxygen is in the exhaust. The engine computer can increase or decrease the amount of oxygen in the exhaust by adjusting the air-to-fuel ratio. This control scheme allows the engine computer to make sure that the engine is running at close to the stoichiometric point, and also to make sure that there is enough oxygen in the exhaust to allow the oxidization catalyst to burn the unburned hydrocarbons and CO.
Courtesy of HowStuffWorks.com
It appears from those more expert than I that the second stage of a 3-way catalyst is reducing the CO levels in exhaust.
Yes you are right...even your range (stove) or cooktop in the kitchen produces CO. That is one of the reasons you have a powered vent or hood over or near it.
[ June 13, 2003, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Essex502 ]

eliminatedsprinter
06-13-2003, 08:08 AM
Good info Essex, Thanks.
I think we are overreacting to this.
54 of 77 workers at one place (the channel) and at one time (one of the 3 worst times of the year) were found to have CO levels over O.S.H.A.'s
standard. So what? Is this a big deal? What are the long term effects of a mild carboxyhemaglobanemia? All smokers have ^ levels of CO all the time. You hear about a lot of smoking related causes of premature death, but is that one of them?
I would suspect that the only adverse affect these workers would have from this 3 time a year exposure would be that, if they were entered in marathons the following weekend, this might hurt their times, since they would have a little less hemaglobin available at race time.
Remember the O.S.H.A. standards are set to protect workers from constant working conditions. Memorial day is far from an everyday workday.
The eco-extremists will wildly exaggerate this and they will count on others to do the same.
CO is scary stuff, as we know, it can kill, but having a blood level over O.S.H.A.'s standard is far from a health emergency.

Essex502
06-13-2003, 10:27 AM
What are the long-term effects of the condition?
Long-term effects of CO exposure depend on the extent of the poisoning and how quickly it is treated. Long-term effects may include damage to the brain, heart, or lungs. There may also be short-term memory loss. These effects usually improve over time but may be lasting.

Freak
06-13-2003, 11:58 AM
Define a properly tuned mota. A stock properly tuned mota? I doubt any V8 with long duration cam and some big carbs will burn clean on gas.

mickeyfinn
06-13-2003, 12:13 PM
Boozer:
Why not devise a silent choice type exhaust system that uses a catalytic converter? This way when driving in heavily populated areas you can run a less poluting exhaust system and when you hit open water you can open it up and and make as much noise and polution as you want too?
Makes sense to me. Who are we trying to kid here? You know as well as anyone else that if a regulation was put into effect requiring catilytic converters on boats there is almost ZERO chance that you would be able to connect it to silent choice type exhaust when not in the high traffic areas. Once the rule has been made then they will be required at all times. Do you have the option of cutouts on your auto exhaust that you can switch to if you are in a low traffic area?

eliminatedsprinter
06-13-2003, 01:06 PM
Essex
Those are the effects of a serious exposure. I'm asking about the effects of a low level exposure, like the one above. So far none have been found that I am aware of. I must admit that I have not studied this in any detail lately.
You see, CO binds with blood hemoglobin much stronger than O2 does, thus rendering that hemoglobin useless. With a serious exposure, so much hemoglobin is bound up with CO that anoxia occures, if this lasts long enough, tissue death occures and that leads to what you just discribed. But, if there is not enough to cause any serious anoxia, no lasting harm should occure. Once the affeted red blood cells die and are removed from the bloodstream the affeted hemoglobin is gone.
Every cigerette smoker has between 2-10% of their blood hemoglobin bound up with CO all the time. This has been known since the early 70s and researchers have been looking for effcts of this cronic low level exposure. Aside from probable reduced CV endurance I'm not aware if they have found any yet.
I'm asking things like, what is their exposure level? Is it about the same as if they smoked a couple of packs of cigs on that weekend? What if some of these workers with unacceptable levels smoked? What is the automobile traffic like during or just before this weekend? These things need to be answered before anyone knows if there really even is a health problem.
One thing is for sure, the saftey and eco-nazies will surely make it into a political problem for us.
P.S. This may be a dumb question, but are people BBQing there?
P.P.S. I'm saying all of this off of the top of my head, based on what I learned in my Environmental Health, Physiology, Pathology, Exercise Physiology, etc... coursework and my continuing medical education courses, that have touched upon those subjects since. I'm sure there is a M.D. out there on the boards who could explain this better and in more accurate detail than I.

TCHB
06-13-2003, 04:32 PM
CO has a direct relation to unburned fuel. If you have a modern car engine run rich the CO will spike up 1000% and NOX will stay somewhat low.
Now you take high performance engines and let them idle and load up now you have very high levels of CO. You put 100 boats together in the same small area and now we have a problem.
The holiday weekends are the problem!!!