7,000 parts per trillion ?!?!!?!?! An outrage !!?!?!?!?!? That'll be 7 parts per billion then ? or 0.007 ppm. Is this really of such concern ? You must get the same quantities from eating an Egg sandwich. You can smell the emissions from that. That'll be in the ppm's or ppt's. I am more concerned about the 2% Benzene in fuel. That IS a carcinogen. And there IS an alternative. (MnO4) Anyone heard of a pea souper ? Now that's what I call pollution. Arrest me for eating egg sandwiches if you like. Direct Injection is the future anyway, for lean burn and efficiency.

Lionel Tiger, Birmingham,

Anyone causing a diesel spillage should be 'banged up' for the same length of time as the life-expectancy of the other road users who are killed as a result of their careless selfishness. That means that a good many drivers of diesel-fuelled vehicles would serve compound life sentences.
Perhaps those incarcerated in that way might find clever lawyers who could (justifiably) argue that our politicians should really be held even more culpable for encouraging diesel use.

D. O'Rorke, Farnham, Surrey

The diesel I buy says that it's very low sulphur to start with - so I feel happy that diesel is best all round -

jack Cohen, NEWENT, Glos

Pot? Kettle? Diesel vehicles are equally nasty; just follow a bus or some old van and try to breathe at the same time.

My car runs on LPG and I feel good.

John, London, UK

The proliferation of man made toxins appears to be almost forgotten in all the noise about CO2 and yet perhaps presents more of a threat. In overall resource depletion and environmental terms, catalytic converters were never a logical solution. And more than that, how could they be when they must be hot to catalyse effectively and yet so much running is short journey cold and warm up? Lean burn was the answer - probably remains so. Meanwhile relatively very clean burning LPG does not get the media or political attention it deserves.

GC, Harrogate, UK

Please ensure when reporting on such matter that you report things accurately.
Throughout the article reference was made to "all cars" when this in not in fact true. The research and resultant data only apply to GASOLINE (i.e. Petrol Powered) cars not the the increasingly popular Diesel powered ones.
Although much lower producers of CO2 than petrol engined cars, Diesel cars are almost universally condemned for their higher "other" pollutants and until recently been more heavily taxed as a result, yet these results reveal that truth that petrol is just as bad, if not a worse
producer of toxic emissions.
Whenever diesel is made out to be bad it is made clear that it is just diesel nthat is being talked about, in this case it is just petrol and nowhere does the Times article make that clear.

Stephen Eeley, London, UK

Continued

Whenever diesel is made out to be bad it is made clear that it is just diesel that is being talked about, in this case it is just petrol and nowhere does the Times article make that clear.
I questioned the writers on the matter and this was the reply from Dr Samuel.

"Currently we are investigating real-world emission species from gasoline engines. We do not have sufficient data to comment on real-world emissions from Diesel engines at the moment"

Stephen Eeley, London, UK

Please ensure when reporting on such matter that you report things accurately.
Throughout the article reference was made to "all cars" when this in not in fact true. The research and resultant data only apply to GASOLINE (i.e. Petrol Powered) cars not the the increasingly popular Diesel powered ones.
Although much lower producers of CO2 than petrol engined cars, Diesel cars are almost universally condemned for their higher "other" pollutants and until recently been more heavily taxed as a result, yet these results reveal that truth that petrol is just as bad, if not a worse producer of toxic emissions.
Whenever diesel is made out to be bad it is made clear that it is just diesel that is being talked about, in this case it is just petrol and nowhere does the Times article make that clear.
I questioned the writers on the matter and this was the reply from Dr Samuel.

To Follow....................

Stephen Eeley, London, UK