And so is lung desease. Many think breathing carbon monoxide is no good
for your lungs. The only consolation we got is that your breath it too.
Inhale deeply... ;)

Air Pollution, Heart Disease and Stroke

Exposure to air pollution contributes to the development of
cardiovascular diseases (heart disease and stroke).

A person's relative risk due to air pollution is small compared with
the impact of established cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking,
obesity, or high blood pressure.  However, this is a serious public
health problem because an enormous number of people are exposed over an
entire lifetime.

Background

Until May of 2004, the American Heart Association had not issued any
expert reviewed statement about the short-term and long-term effects of
chronic exposure to different pollutants. This was due to flaws in
research design and methodology of many pollution studies. During the
last decade, however, epidemiological studies conducted worldwide have
shown a consistent, increased risk for cardiovascular events, including
heart and stroke deaths, in relation to short- and long-term exposure
to present-day concentrations of pollution, especially particulate
matter.

Elderly patients, people with underlying heart or lung disease, lower
socioeconomic populations and diabetics may be at particularly
increased risk. More research is needed to find out the differential
toxicity of various constituents of air pollution.

(snip)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared that "tens of
thousands of people die each year from breathing tiny particles in the
environment." A recent report released by the nonprofit Health Effects
Institute in Cambridge, Mass., agrees with the EPA assessment. This
study was reviewed by Science magazine and clearly shows that death
rates in the 90 largest U.S. cities rise by 0.5 percent with only a
tiny increase - 10 micrograms (mcg) per cubic meter -- in particles
less than 10 micrometers in diameter. This finding is similar to those
of other studies throughout the world. The case is stronger with this
study, because it eliminated several factors that could confound the
interpretation of the data, such as temperature and other pollutants.

The number of deaths due to cardiac and respiratory problems may be
small when looking at individual cities with small particles in the
environment. The combined long-term effect of studies in several large
cities predicts 60,000 deaths each year caused by particulate matter.
This is a staggering loss of life that can be eliminated by stricter
emissions standards as proposed by the EPA.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE

"History has shown that all empires relying on their military strength
rise and fall bringing about huge catastrophes. America seems to follow
with impetuous speed their paradigm."

I think whether we are the smartest or stupidest species on the face of
the Earth will be put to the test soon. The latter possibility will
bring us closer to the dinosaurs, the former will make us take the next
evolutionary step...

"Shall we accept that it is the unavoidable fate of humans to obey this
law of the jungle or we have the possibility to overcome it by a
quantic jump in our understanding and consciousness?"

This article is dedicated to the wonderful but innocent people of
America.

May be the time has arrived that the whole world must sit still for a
while and meditate on the question whether we want to follow the "law
of the jungle" or there is a possibility of a changed course of action.
Shall we accept that it is the unavoidable fate of humans to obey this
law of the jungle or we have the possibility to overcome it by a
quantic jump in our understanding and consciousness?

It is absolutely sure that if globalization is not founded on moral
values not only will fail but will bring about global calamities.

This assumption is based in the following logical ascertainments:

1. That the law that exists in the natural world is expressed as the
"right of the strongest" or the "law of the jungle" as is more
picturesquely expressed.

When we observe this "law" in action we realise that if we abandon a
garden on which we cultivated useful fruit trees, in a few years, these
evolved species of trees become weak and eventually die and their place
is taken by wild plants and trees. Nature is not interested to ennoble
the species, to evolve them, to make them more useful for humans, on
the contrary according to the second law of thermodynamics nature is
always tending to bring about a chaotic situation inertness and the
lowest state of consciousness.

2. Humans on the other hand, have since long decided to go against this
'law of nature', and establish the moral law where the 'right' and the
'just' should prevail. The help to the weaker and the needy, the
support of one another, the individual freedom, the respect of each
other and the respect of the human laws are necessary. The declaration
of the human rights, the basic rights and freedoms to which all human
beings are entitled, - the right to life and liberty, freedom of
thought and expression, and equality before the law. - was the result
of human experience in order not to allow the law of the jungle `to
prevail upon humanity. All these values were established in order to
make possible the survival of the human race in separate societies but
also to give the possibility for evolution and spiritual development.
Humans are the only living creatures in the Cosmos that have the
possibility of choosing either to 'create' or to 'destroy'. The
technological advancement should have been the means of helping the
evolution of humans not the means of their destruction.

It is therefor obvious that as long as the moral laws are not applied,
the world will not march towards an evolution and the creation of a
"new human being" but on the contrary will go on a chaotic and downward
process where the law of the jungle will prevail even if the 'rulers'
of our times will try to impose some kind of order that suits them.

The human rights declaration were expressed mainly by the European
spirit. The moral law, was a law established by humans against the laws
of nature. That is why, every time humans are trying to enforce the
moral law, nature reacts in a thousand different ways in order to
prevent the 'right' and the 'just' to be established and to prevail.

On the other side of this moral law lies what we see today. For
instance Sadam applying the law of the "strongest" in Iraq brought all
his people to the brink of total destruction. The American government
applying the same law will also bring eventually these extraordinary
people of America, to the brink of their own moral extinction.

History has shown that whoever leader (or group of leaders) attempted
to impose their will through 'brutal power', was eventually enraptured
in the arrogance of power and destroyed themselves and their own
people. The last example was Hitler and all that the German race is
suffering till now because of his brutal behaviour.

History has shown that all empires relying on their military strength
rise and fall bringing about huge catastrophes. America seems to follow
with impetuous speed their paradigm.

The whole world must meditate on the question whether we want to follow
the same processes or there is a possibility of a changed course of
action. Shall we accept that it is the unavoidable fate of humans to
obey this law of the jungle or we have the possibility to overcome it
by a quantic jump in our understanding and consciousness?

more...

http://www.vithoulkas.com/library_EN/horizons/horizons04.html
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

I suppose we have to develop our listening abilities. s<<<

I say it specifically because I have gone to bicycle groups to propose
bike lanes, and they don't want them; to the car groups to propose
stricter licensing for SUVs because they are a threat to others, and
they don't want to hear; to the radio groups saying too many strident
commercials on the hour, and they ignore it; and the stupid drug
prohibition that generates so much crime, and the parks being off
limits to families because the homeless camp out there, and the Parking
Authority who prays on the poor with a vengeance, and the littering,
and the stupid policy on terrorism, and the bay with all the junk
floating. So Americanus Raptor, the last dinosaur on Earth, refuses to
evolve...

My point is that America remains a jungle in 2004. Everything and
anything is a consequence of that. I rest my case... ;)

You are 100% correct (for once.)

HOWEVER:

1) we should not be encouraging excess consumption by giving
corporations tax breaks on truck-based SUVs but not cars

2) we should also not be encouraging excess consumption by enacting
measures that replace fuel taxes with mileage-based taxes, as proposed
in at least CA and VA.

4) we should also not be encouraging excess consumption by keeping the
obviously flawed CAFE system that imposes large fees on passenger cars
that actually get *better* fuel mileage than SUVs which are not subject
to the same standards, when they are used for the exact same purpose.

3) It is unconscionable that mfgrs. are allowed to run misleading
advertising touting the "safety" of their SUVs by pointing out specific
features like airbags, etc. giving the impression that they are safer
than passenger cars when in fact usually the opposite is true; not only
are most SUVs by nature unable to handle or stop as well as an average
car but they also do not always meet the minimum safety requirements
that *all* passenger cars must meet (I believe that this last is to
change, or may have already changed however.  That still does not negate
the active safety advantages inherent to the passenger car.)

4) Most people who claim they "need" an SUV are quite simply full of
caca.  Nobody at all bought them until CAFE killed off the full sized
car; 20 years ago even in rural areas Blazers, Broncos, Scouts, Jeeps
etc. were the exception not the rule.  It was rare to see one that
wasn't modified for off-road, and unlike today, it seemed that a decent
percentage of those actually did see occasional off-road use.

So you see, I do not argue for any legislative measures to discourage
people from buying SUVs, nor do I wish to infringe on the right of
people to buy whatever they please, so long as they can afford it.  I am
only arguing for more rational regulations that do not *encourage* their
use when another, more efficient and safer vehicle would serve even
better (a level playing field if you will) and of course, I reserve the
right to laugh at and deride people who make stupid, short-sighted
decisions in the name of "style."

nate