Where Has All The Rubber Gone? 44
Makarand writes "We all recognize vehicle tailpipe emissions to be a source of pollution.
But what happens to the castoff rubber from your tires that have lost tread?
No one knew where this rubbber was going
until recently. Allison Draper, a professor of environmental chemistry
at Bucknell University, is conducting research to end all guess work on
this topic and with the hope of finding ways to make tires less polluting.
She found for every kilometer a car travels, about 90 milligrams of tread wears off in particles ranging in size 10-75 microns.Toxins in the larger suspended particles leach out when exposed to water and the run off harms plant and animal life.
These toxins are still being identified."
in related news (Score:2, Funny)
Simple Solution: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simple Solution: (Score:1)
from the rubbber-bbabby-bbuggy-bbumpers dept. (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it obbvious? They're making keybboards out of it now!
Where have all the *what* gone? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Where have all the *what* gone? (Score:4, Funny)
You mean when you are cheating?
Re:Where have all the *what* gone? (Score:1)
Yeah, that was my thought too. Unless he means when his wife isn't cheating?
I almost hate to get serious here, but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahem! (Score:1, Funny)
On second thought this is slashdot, you don't know.
Thinking this over again what a sad loser i am...
2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad (Score:4, Funny)
added benefits
experience the joy of sweeping through curves on two wheels as opposed to whaling through them on four
riding a motorcycle is so dangerous you will be forced into a state of active meditation everytime you get out on the road
Re:2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad (Score:2)
Re:2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad (Score:3, Funny)
Scarry (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason you still use rubber... (Score:1)
Is because I patented magnetic wheels and steel roads!
Magnetic roads and steel wheels patent pending.
Ali
New rubber composition (Score:5, Interesting)
Odd, I thought this had been resolved long ago (Score:5, Interesting)
A figure I recall is that Americans use up 100 million tires a year.
The particulates causing asthma could be plausible. Another suspected culprit is diesel particulates or DEP. The particles may be more or less benign, but cause an irritation that might contribute the the rise in asthma and other respiratory problems.
Anyway
Re:Odd, I thought this had been resolved long ago (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Odd, I thought this had been resolved long ago (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Odd, I thought this had been resolved long ago (Score:1, Insightful)
i say if it is suspected then outlaw it untill it can be proven that its not a problem.
not left in the system untill it is peoven that it is.
Why not error on the side of health and environment.
instead of profit and greed.
Just this
or any other person animal place or thing.
that can be sued or not sued or any other
type of finacial terrorism.
Re:Odd, I thought this had been resolved long ago (Score:2)
Experimental Design (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing about the rubber that comes off tires is that it's worn and weathered. Both the surface where the wear is directly, and the particles themselves have had time to oxidize, which is going to change the types of compounds that you'll leach from your samples. More accurate results might be obtained if she took her ground samples, and let them age a bit while exposed to air and sunlight. Some substances would break down or be altered, while other new ones might be formed during this time.
After leaching the particles, you might then pass it through soil samples. Larger particulates will settle out, while some organic substances will bind to clays or be degraded by microbes. The results might be more like what actually ends up in run-off.
If she wanted to take a more reductionist approach, she could obtain the individual substances used in tires, and test them individually against her organisms. Butadiene rubber, Carbon black, Silica (sometimes), Sulfur vulcanizing agents, etc. This ignores any reactions that may occur between the ingredients (probably minimal for some ingredients like carbon black, but extensive for the vulcanizing agents, for example), but gives some hints as to what exactly is causing your problems.
Re:Experimental Design (Score:2, Offtopic)
Runaway tires? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, retreading a tire is probably nicer on the environment than bringing out a whole new tire, but not when these retreads are laying along roadsides polluting etc.
Not to mention that some of these suckers are quite large. When they come flying off of big-rig towards you, it would be somewhat of a safety hazard?
Re:Runaway tires? (Score:1, Interesting)
Tires ARE manufactured like this. The tread is not an integral part of the tire.
Re:Runaway tires? (Score:2)
MILLIgrams? (Score:4, Interesting)
1 lb or rubber per 3080 miles?
I have 70,000 mile tires on my car, so does that mean that when they're old, my tires will be 22lbs lighter, EACH?
I find this suspect...
Re:MILLIgrams? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. This means that in addition to balding tires give you a bit more dry traction, they now give you slightly better mileage through reduced weight. Science is just racking up reasons for me to put off a new tire purchase.
Re:MILLIgrams? (Score:1)
Did these 70.000 mile tires ... (Score:2, Insightful)
On a normal car *I* have to drive in, I would not trust tires that last 70.000 miles, because under adverse conditions (cold, wet) the rubber would be too hard to get good grip on the road.
If you want to reduce the cost of driving, buy a smaller car or drive more carefully to save on gas and tire wear, but do not risk your and your families health by compromising the single most important active safety component of your car.
Also depends on treadwear rating of tire (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Also depends on treadwear rating of tire (Score:3, Interesting)
Retreads (Score:2, Funny)
rubber eating bacteria... (Score:4, Informative)
I remember reading recently (within the last year) that a naturally occuring bacteria has been found along roadsides that actually break down and digest the rubber debri from tires. Again, these were NATURALLY occurring organisms, not GMOs. The lack of rubber debri buildup had puzzled scientists for years until this discovery.
You've got to remember the second law of thermodynamics: all things move from order to disorder (at least I think it was the second law... :) ). Nature has a way of breaking down just about everything, even our pollution! It may take time, and yes, we can "overproduce" polution, overwhelming the natural process. We simply need to pace production to meet measured, natural remediation. Sometimes, we need to give it a helping hand to make things better (our hand in defying that same "second law" that we are relying on.) Sometimes relying on nature and its cycle is not wise because the presence of certain chemicals in the environment, even if they do get broken down quickly, could cause health problems.
Another thought... When one large volcano erupts once, and we're talking a big blast here, not your typical "I think the mountain god is hungry" type of rumble, Chloro Flouro Carbons (however you spell it) and other polution (typically only linked with modern industrial pollution) are pumped into the environment in volumes in excess of ALL modern pollution over its entire history. Yea, the ash drops the temperature/raises the temperature, causes storms and other hellish environmental catastrophies, but it passes. The cycle catches up, sun goes up, sun goes down.
I'm adamantly FOR environmental responsibility. I am also for a LEARNED response to otherwise fear inciting "discoveries". Think it out. Learn the process. Compare with past evidences. THEN make policy. If something comes up that seems to contradict the policy, follow the same procedures and if the policy is wrong, change it.
Pure environmentalists are great people. We would lack the necessary conscience to take proper care of our environment without them. They are, however, oversensative to their ideals and, so, should not be running the policy. Just like RMS should not be "running" the open source movement. He is a great voice in the frey. Without him, we would not have gotten as far as we have, nor will we get were we need to be without his voice and others like his. The edgyness of his idealism, however, would drive too many people from the cause if he were "in charge". He's a great man in the struggle and his opinion should be listened to and respected. In the same way, environmentalists should be listened to and respected. Just don't give them the keys to the armory! We'd all be dead for stepping on ants!
Have you ever realy tlaked to one? (Score:2)
However most of them also note that whatever they ask for they will only get a comprimise if they get anything at all. This is why they ask for so much.
As my friend told me "if you want a hundred bucks, don't ask for a hundred bucks ask for a thousand, you will be stoked if you get the whole thing, but you will be satisfied if you only get a tenth of what you ask for"
Re:Have you ever realy tlaked to one? (Score:1)
Acutually, I am one, but of a differect stripe than most. I'm sort of a PragmatiLiberoConservatary Environmentalist. ;>
I like to see both sides (or all fifteen, for that matter) of an issue. I then pull out the best pieces that have the most potential for producing results. I have found that most Liberals and Conservatives (at least as generally defined in the US) want the same results on most issues. They mostly disagree on the methodology.
In the popular movements for both sides, the strongest viewpoint is usually the one that is paid for by the highest bidder. The guilty party behind the cracked methodologies is sometimes the same entity for both sides. The usual results, if either one is followed is that that entity winds up with more money, power, or both. As it is with most issues, the common citizen (those who don't have time to follow the details of a particular issue) will follow the loud voices that mostly line up with their normal viewpoint, ie: Democrat/Republican, etc... They generaly take sides on an issue in ignorance, even if it is the right one.
Asking for more than what will do is a good methodology. In the realm of politics and public opinion, it is almost the only way to get things done. Asking for it with misleading or false data is simply fraud. FUDding things causes overreaction and oppression. It puts undue power into the government's hands. The wild-eyed greens need to keep this in mind.
A good example of this is the 9-11 delemma. Although I generally lean with the Republicans, the steps taken against the civil rights of our citizens in the name of protection has gone way too far. This was caused by FUD. Even if I trust the current occupants of government with this power, I DO NOT TRUST THOSE WHO MAY FOLLOW!
Overreacting or overreporting is the height of irresponsibility in a free society. Although I will fight for their right to speak, I will use truth and common sense persuasion to defeat those who lie or exagurate to get their way.
Man, am I getting waaaay too serious or what?!
Where has all the rubber gone... (Score:1)
EPA documents rubber (Score:2)