Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracus
I can't believe that I am reading this. You are trying to impose a certain level of knowledge, yet you are comparing different things?
Same as EMF versus MRI.
My small battery bothers me but doesn't bother me.
- A 12V small battery that is used just to start the vehicle can not be compared with a huge battery that you sit on. Are you kidding?
- Firstly they are very different in terms of composition and secondly, even if they were the same, the emissions between the two are kind of like a cigarette passive smoke versus fire smoke. Not even.
- The starter battery is not used to run an electric engine -> no field
- A bigger pack of batteries for Ev needs a special design. Please look at the first Electric vehicles or hybrid and you might see the vent openings and the fans mounted for ventilation. The new vehicles design conceive everything from your eyesight
- Anyway, ideal is that the battery is placed in an open space (engine bay) but BMW and some other manufacturers placed the starter battery in the trunk just to achieve the 50-50 weight ratio that improves the chassis, recte the improved balance and handling. Like Citroen used to put the spare tire on left and battery on the right.
- there is not big of a concern for a small starter battery if is place in the cabin space (trunk), however, you can always replace it with a dry one.
- no need Google, just read on the battery label that tells you a lot about content, warnings and charging requirements. Now keep in mind that batteries get a charge while driving.
Tesla battery Pack System
"A thermal management system is provided that minimizes the effects of thermal runaway within a battery pack. The system is comprised of a sealed battery pack enclosure configured to hold a plurality of batteries, where the battery pack enclosure is divided into a plurality of sealed battery pack compartments. The system also includes a plurality of battery venting assemblies, where at least one battery venting assembly is integrated into each of the sealed battery pack compartments, and where each of the battery venting assemblies includes an exhaust port integrated into an outer wall of the battery pack compartment and a valve, the valve being configured to seal the exhaust port under normal operating conditions and to unseal the exhaust port when at least one of the batteries within the battery pack compartment enters into thermal runaway."
"The main object is to provide a high-reliability battery pack that is capable of exhausting the gas even when the quantity of the gas released from the cell is small, and to provide a vehicle with the battery pack which can improve the reliability. A battery pack has a battery module unit that is formed from a plurality of arranged battery modules, each of which has a plurality of cells in a case, a cooling air flow passage where a cooling air flow flows, and a gas exhaust duct which forms a gas exhaust passage. The gas exhaust duct extends in an arrangement direction of the plurality of the battery modules while being contiguous to the battery module unit, and takes in the gas released in the case from the cell, then exhausts the gas from the battery module. The gas exhaust duct is provided with a gas inlet for taking in the gas, which communicates with a gas emission hole formed on a surface of the case, and an air intake that serves to take in the cooling air flow."
Now, are you sure you are comparing my starter battery with a whole EV pack?
Anyway, you deviated again from EMF which is A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE, but I went along to give you some information. My initial point was that leaving aside the toxicity and other issues, you are sitting all that period on the top of an EMF field.
As a side note, I have an academic education in the field. What you as a user know (or they want you to know) is different than what you know or need to know as an engineer behind the scenes. You might like the hot dogs; but the guy who makes them never eats them.
And to answer to your question, engineers and technicians that work in these fields are included in a special work hazard niche. Guess why? In Europe, these occupations are categorized under a special occupational hazard category and they receive a supplementary payment in salary and pension plans for that. In some European countries, there are also certain rules that forbid to be in the field more than a certain period of time. Again, do you know why?
Please compare your north American 'in parameters" "safe" standards with the European ones and ask yourself after why in Europe the regulated accepted levels are in some areas even a thousand times less.
It is funny that you are complaining about my behavior, yet you have a very arrogant and condescending post. You are trying to "educate" me. 
No thank you, I got my education in a perfect academic environment, where we learn things as they are.
My point was that nothing in excess is good; is one thing to have a small battery that is used solely to start a vehicle and that's it, and is a different thing to sit on a huge chemical plant that drives four motors that also produce fields. Cell phone is harmless too (not really) but using it non-stop or living by a cell tower is a different story. But some are ok; their choice.
Again, your comments are all over the place and nobody asked you anything about the good radiation. What are you trying to prove with this common knowledge? All natural processes like vitamin D synthesis, are harmless because this is the environment our body has been conceived in and developed since the beginning. It is natural, we developed end evolved in time based on our environment. There are species that can thrive in every environment.
Anyway, you are always deviating all over the place, from EMF, to MRI, to high current and to power plants, plus you have a very hypocritical way of addressing your perception while adopting a condescending attitude towards the other and for this reason I will do my best to avoid you in the future. |
Well, I'm sorry I offended you and my behavior definitely could be better. I read up on EMF and there's definitely concerns over exposure. The USA doesn't have limits on EMF exposure whereas Europeans do. Why is that? I found studies that from WHO that say although there's no evidence that EMF causes any sort of disease, they recommend protection against it (hence the limitations). From all of the research I found, it seems that protections are in place due to a "just in case" mentality with no evidence of danger. Lawyers govern our world, but scientifically, those limitations are meaningless. Feel free to link articles that prove otherwise.
Tesla enthusiasts also concerned about EMF has multiple threads about the issue and many even took readings while the car is parked and during WOT. The result? No difference from conventional cars. WOT in a Tesla resulted in 800nT reading whereas a BMW 5 series resulted even more at 7000nT. How is this possible? Faraday cage effect? Tesla shields from EMF? Basically microwaves, LCD screens and other daily things produce EMF on par with those levels, so the readings they measured mainly result from EMF generated within the cabin itself. Maybe BMW has more electrical components inside compared to a sparse Tesal interior. Read the links. Pretty interesting stuff.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thre...model-s.28494/
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thre...adiation.2335/
Here a discussion where the Earth's magnetic field is greater than EMF exhibited by Teslas:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/emf-dangers
If you have any data on measurements of EMF in EVs, please share. The science community recognizes that low frequency EMF is harmless. In this case, EMF radiation can be looked at like visible light radiation (in terms safety). EVs do not produce high frequency EMF like mircowave ovens (which can be analogous to gamma radiation in my "light" analogy), they only produce low frequency EF. If you have documented results that prove otherwise please share, because it seems like the European safety standards are there without any evidence (or maybe they are protecting against HF EMF and just decided it's easier to blanket the whole spectrum and put a universal limit because it'd be too complicated to understand).
I also still don't understand why you think MRIs don't apply here. They are an extreme example of EMF. In fact lots of studies that focus on trying to prove that EMFs are harmful utilize MRIs (they call conclude that there is no measurable damage done btw). Look them up. You can vary the frequency and magnitude of EMF all over the place with those machines. Cars produce EMF in levels of nano Teslas whereas MRIs range from 1.5 - 3T or above (that's a million to a billion times more) a field so powerful that it reorients the water molecules in your body. I can't really think of another situation where EMF exposure is so high. If EMF exposure is harmful, surely MRI patients will show signs of disease first (which has never been documented to my knowledge) as sitting in a MRI machine for an hour which is a very routine length of procedure would equate to a billion hours (114,000 years) in a EV. I'm curious to know what the European safety standards for MRI patients are and the evidence they used to back that up? EMF, current, MRI machines are all related. High current equals EMF. Alternating current = EMF. MRI exhibits high current. Power plants exhibit high current. EV's produce less current, that's why I brought all those extreme situations to bear. I don't understand why you think those examples don't belong in this argument, feel free to explain in specific detail why not.
From my understanding Li-ion batteries need venting in case of "thermal runaway" where the battery fails. They do not release gases under normal operating conditions. They are in sealed enclosures with a vent check valve that is normally never used. If you get in an accident where the battery is damaged or bursts into flame, then yeah, the batteries short, undergo thermal runaway and there must be a venting system in place to prevent a catastrophic explosion and therefore release fumes that if you breathe are dangerous. But the same applies to ICE, which happens whenever you use the car. So from my reading.... Tesla has less EMF exposure and less poisonous fumes to breathe in...
EDIT: Although I find this conversation pretty educational now that I've begun to research this EMF scare topic (interesting fact: the Earth's natural magnetic field is on several orders of magnitude greater than what an EV emits), my personal opinion on how toxic EV batteries are for your daily driving health is that they are minimal (as previously mentioned dry Li-ion batteries - the current power source of modern EVs - don't normally vent).
Hypothetically, what if a salesman trying to sell EVs said to you (a potential car buyer) that EVs emitted a gas that was toxic for you to breathe in during normal operation... So toxic in fact that if you sealed yourself in a room with the car running, you'd die of the poison in mere minutes. But no worries! Just don't let the battery run in closed environments and you'll be safe! Would you buy the EV?...
It's funny because ICE (which no one is afraid of) have this property. Lots of people have died from the fumes that are emitted from ICE drive train emissions and NO ONE has died (or let alone even had documented disease) from electric motor EMF. That's how toxic ICE drive trains are. Pushing out poison continuously. And people are concerned about EMF (measured as the same with ICE cars anyways) and Li-ion fumes (which normally are never present)? So from my perspective EMF and "ventilating batteries" are extremely weak (if not non-existent as explained above) arguments against EVs as ICE represents a much greater potential danger to health.
It seems that you're so focused on looking at the cons of EVs that you forgot to look at the bigger picture.