Letter: Combatting car fumes
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: With regard to your article relating heart attacks to car fumes, when driving behind a vehicle with a catalytic converter one is frequently assailed by the smell of hydrogen sulphide (a smell of rotten eggs).
Hydrogen sulphide is only marginally less toxic than hydrogen cyanide, and both can cause cyanosis, leading to heart failure. The question is, which is more toxic in the concentration we breathe, hydrogen sulphide, or the sulphur dioxide which is emitted from cars not fitted with a catalytic converter?
TERRY SCOTT
Nottingham
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments