So here's the problem I have with the idea of emmissions controls taken too far, too fast.

First, the quick backstory: In the late 90s, the EPA discovered diesel engine manufacturers were pulling some tobacco-company stunts to pass emmissions standards, like providing fake prototypes that were less polluting than the models up for sale. When they found out, the EPA decided to take their twenty-year plan and cut it down to, like, 8 years.

So the diesel manufacturers rushed to meet the standards. After installing giant equivalents to catalytic converters, they utilized Exhaust Gas Recirculation, which popped engine temps by 10%, but burned more of the particulates away (or possibly just made them too small to track). Then they initiated Diesel Particulate Filters, which killed engine performance and created breakdown issues.

Thus, they wanted to eliminate the DPF in the new 2010 Model Year engines. One still uses DPFs and EGR--German-Manufactured MAXXForce, available exclusively with Navistar Internationals. The rest--excluding Caterpillar, who has flipped North America the bird re: highway diesel production and will no longer offer engines--have switched to using Diesel Exhaust Fluid, better know as urea.

Urea is a nasty chemical that causes skin rashes, etc, and when heated makes some really nasty gas that you really don't want to be breathing if you enjoy breathing and want to continue doing so in the near and extended future.

And now, we're gonna super-heat it and shoot it out of millions of engines nationwide, covering most population centers and crossing our farmlands.

Now, I realize the reason it's being injected into the exhaust is because it will react chemically with the particulates and likely be neutralized in the process. But has nobody realized that if we can't ever seem to burn off all the diesel in our engines, or gas for that matter, maybe it's not good to superheat a chemical that, when heated creates skin and eye damage, and then shoot it out into the air?

IF it's true that invisible particles of soot are blocking in the sun's rays, preventing heat from escaping and leveling out global temperatures and thus, as a general fact, increasing our average temperatures (which I am neither arguing for nor against in this blog) then why do we see fit to spew this junk into the atmosphere?

Like I said earlier, it bemuses me that Democrats, who seek political power (rather than Republicans, who seek financial) are trying to federalize healthcare at the moment their agency (really, what Republican has unwaveringly backed the money-costing EPA?) has induced this potential Health Disaster. You want to know why I'm convinced of conspiracy? Because too much of it is clearly so, even this doomsday scenario starts to feel logical.

Open your eyes. Just not around urea gas.

CBear47, Anarchist Messiah.