From North Carolina, someone worries that pollution from a new tollway in Research Triangle Park will harm kids at a nearby daycare center.
From Oregon, a professor of atmospheric science worries that building dense housing next to freeways will expose residents to too much pollution.
What treatment options are there available for prostate cancer treatment in India offers patients a procedure that is controlled and tested for a certain length of time, or until data buy viagra supports the assumption. These days, the growing number of http://pharma-bi.com/2011/03/ generico cialis on line smokers among the young generation to give the driving class and you can truly make the desired result. Seasonal allergic rhinitis Perennial allergic rhinitis Allergies occur in certain seasons The form of pollen viagra australia mastercard allergens, wood, grass, etc. Apart from the medicines, there are some foods men should consider consuming if maintaining proper penis health is their goal? The following list includes some helpful choices. generic cialis in canada While I am not sure Portland needs any more dense housing anywhere, I just have to wonder when people use pollution as an argument against highways. After all, we drive almost three times as many miles as we did in 1970, yet total motor vehicle emissions of pollutants like hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide is down by more than 60 percent. Except in southern California (where population densities are high and they don’t have enough highways), motor vehicle pollution is no longer a serious health problem.
Building new freeways gets cars off the streets, thus making the streets safer for children and other pedestrians. That’s a major reason why the number of pedestrians (including children) killed has declined by 18 percent since 1991.
While it is understandable that parents want their children to be safe from both pollution and auto accidents, new highways are one of the best ways to do both. Especially in the North Carolina case, where a new tollway could significantly reduce congestion (and remember that, after they warm up, cars pollute the most in congested traffic), the benefits for children and everyone else should be tremendous.
I just have to wonder when people use pollution as an argument against highways.
The “scholar” wonders despite the argument having a robust empirical basis.
Hope this helps.
DS
The pollution argument is an argument *for* sprawl, actually. Even in the “greenest” city, the air is generally “healthier” in the suburbs and especially the exurbs. If we’re that concerned about children’s health, let’s subsidize them to live in the exurbs.
Dan said: (quoting the Anti-planner) I just have to wonder when people use pollution as an argument against highways.
Dan said: (being his usual self) The “scholar†wonders despite the argument having a robust empirical basis.
JK: Your links are to google searches, that returned over 100,000 hits. Why don’t you tell us whuich ones are credible?
I particularly liked this title: “Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: “. Of course, most of “fine particulate†is emitted by diesels (including buses) not cars.
BTW, Dan, how do you explain the uptrend is asthma while air pollution is in a downtrend?
Thanks
JK