Cut china out of the picture. Especially economically. Now or asap . free ourselves. But as long as were the blank check for china we bear some or all the responsibility

But then where would we get all our brake pads etc

Brazil. The good old fashioned way. Oh, that's out.

Doesn't matter to me I wont be living in this crazy sate by then!

Nope - perfect analogy, you just don’t like it because it makes it clear you are making excuses for not doing what the physics makes clear we must.

I don't like it because it's violent and inappropriate and you are a sick for thinking about it.

You are wrong about me.

I installed a cat on my 914. Your 914 have a cat? No? Hypocrite.

I'm willing to bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

EVs are a trillion dollar bandaid to a human race problem.

After reading about the Chinese car industry convention, I believe China will be the first to go full EV, and yet they will still be the largest polluters because of manufacturing all the luxuries humans buy.

PS. physics makes EVs useless in the cold.

I was kinda with you until this. Firstly define 'cold' - Norway (quite a 'cold' place) is leading the way in EV sales. Partly because of government incentives admittedly but I doubt that the Norwegians would snap up tax breaks if it meant them sitting in 'useless' cars.

Secondly I presume what you are referring to is the reduced range because of the effect of low temperatures on battery chemistry ? So that's reduced range NOT useless.

And as I said previously just because EVs - or anything else - don't work for someone somewhere that is no reason for the rest of us not to reduce our emissions and our costs.

I'd love to hear more about this. What MY? Maybe in another thread?

Also, I meant to comment that I agree with you that the mandate would be better if it were tied to carbon output but I also appreciate that it would be a more complicated system more vulnerable to political manipulation or mismanagement. I'll take simple but imperfect solutions over nothing at all.

I think the argument that EV is the most expensive solution or relies on optimistic technology advances is a bit outdated though. When this thread started, I went "shopping" to see what I could buy in an EV. I was shocked at the prices. I could by a new Leaf for the same we paid for our Honda CRV in 2006 once you adjust for inflation. For not too much more, I could get a VW ID.4 which would be a significant upgrade in luxury. Both are getting close to the ranges I'm looking for so the technology improvements needed are really only incremental. In fact, they are so close that my wife and I have decided to put off replacing our aging DD for a couple years just to see where EV are at that time.

With the move to all EV in the future has the government of California indicated how they would make up the loss of liquid fuel taxes they now collect ($0.69/gal taxes)? How will they tax EVs to make up the difference?

In PA, every township receives liquid fuel grants to do road improvements. With zero liquid fuel tax the EVs have to be taxed somehow as roads will still need to be maintained and improved.

In VA, there's an annual fee as part of registration for EVs, currently $88, in place of paying gas tax. Based on how many miles I drive per year, I'm effectively getting hosed compared to driving a relatively fuel-efficient car and paying gas taxes.

Ultimately, I think the solution should be more directly aligned to road wear & tear rather than fuel consumption. Virginia has a mandatory annual safety inspection. I don't see why they couldn't record the odometer mileage at the annual inspection and send a Highway Tax bill based on a formula of vehicle weight, emissions (perhaps), and miles driven.

It's imperfect -- people can cheat odometers (though it's already illegal to do so) and it's not perfectly equitable for in-state / out-of-state driving, but it seems like a better system than a patchwork of gasoline taxes and fees for alt fuel vehicles.

We are talking about carbon emissions, your cat unfortunately provides zero benefit there. It likely does offer air pollution advantages outside of that and you are to be commended for sure for installing it.



I'll take that bet - tell us, how many hours a day do you run your air conditioning and how much of your overall power consumption is from renewables?



They are part of the solution, no one other than those engaging in logical fallacies is claiming they are the solution.




Likely so...



Compromised, but not useless.

To be super clear here - I am pushing back on common arguments rather than getting personal with you Chris. You are a fine fellow by all of my interactions with you and contributions here, and it is clear your heart and brain are in the right place, trying to make sure mine are as well.

One of the comments above really resonates with me—it's really whole picture, and about each of our total footprints as much as anyone else.

I wouldn't say I'm an "environmentalist," but I did go through Scouting as a kid and one of the big takeaways was to leave the campground as you found it or, if at all possible, better than you found it. And so I've been making some changes over time.

Cut my commute from 45~ miles a day to 5~ miles in 2008 (with my better half switching to a bus into downtown most days) and then a short walk for both of us in 2012. When we went looking for an office, the commercial realtor kept getting on the freeway, and in the direction of morning commute traffic...and I kept saying, "No, no, no…" Our current landlord keeps raising the rent at our walkable office, but part of our calculous is the cost of driving a car to an alternative. My work is specialized, so if I can ditch my commute, others (though certainly not everyone) can do it. And the pandemic is forcing the question on a mass scale. I think it's a good thing in the long haul.

Rooftop solar goes on this week, with battery backup. The battery is costly, but the solar is a push for ten years and then should cut our electricity bill to zero for the next 15-25 after that. And the battery starts looking a lot better when weighed against throwing out food or being dead in the water without electricity for our business. Moving one of our three cars to an EV is on the horizon, but the environmental aspect is only one part of the thinking. I like the idea of eliminating fuel bills and fuel stops. A lot. If the lease on something we actually want to drive is even close, it'll be a no-brainer.

Flipside, I've traveled by air for work quite a bit over the last 23 years (6-12 trips per year, with 2-4 of them overseas), and our household falls into many of the same consumption traps so many others do. But we're still looking for changes we can make.

So count me as one more who'd like to hear more about a catalyst on a 914. I suppose a catalyst will do its thing no matter what, with or without the 02 sensor, so then I'm curious about packaging, that much heat around a 901 transmission, fire safety, etc. As much as I love driving my old 914, and that's a lot, and as much as I can say its impact is inconsequential due to the mileage it travels each year (as well as the fact that it prevents me from going through a series of cars that have to be built), I'm becoming increasingly aware of just how smelly my 914 is as it drives through today's world—mainly because of how clean most cars have become. No one from the general public has complained to me about it (yet), but I sometimes wonder if smiles and waves from pedestrians and neighbors are occasionally replaced by other feelings as raw unburned everything wafts over them. But more than that, I'd just like to clean up after myself.

Glad we got that cleared up


Not exactly. I care more about clean air, clean water, clean earth and that mess of a trash island in the pacific than carbon emissions. Those are things I can make better with actions today. But they are interconnected.

I'm not an environmentalist, I'm a boy scout too


Those are actually the wrong questions. I have no control over the weather or where the power company sources electricity. But here it's mostly NatGas & some solar. If NatGas is not clean then the buses are lying CA takes all the hydro & most of the solar.

I can say my house was built in 1971 and so far I have spent a small fortune on new retrofit windows. Last year I replaced the upstairs seer 6 a/c unit with seer 14 and a new roof in prep for solar panels. Power bill is about half. Before covid I was about 2 years away from being off grid and 100% solar w/batteries. Still a few reductions to make plus the tech gets better the more I put it off.
Add to that my property is fairly green considering it's a desert, I drive <2500 miles a year in a used car I've had for 12 years, my cell phone for 6, no TV and consume no cow products. I also have an electric mower. You get the idea.
I've also got to think about moving out of the area if the 10F over average this year becomes a regular thing. Nothing got done outdoors this summer and it cooked a good number of plants.

No actual numbers but that's about as small as one can get in a modern American lifestyle.


Long Way Up, ep 2 and/or 3 (I binged the first 4). The bikes were too cold to charge = useless. Of course that's not every situation, but it did happen.

Well... not exactly. The buses aren't lying but they aren't telling the full story. NG is much cleaner than coal when it is burned but the production is quite messy and leaks a lot of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is many, many times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, the climate impacts from methane leakage are substantial. Although NG is great for cleaning up air quality in a city, it isn't a great solution for climate change although it has it's place since it at least can be better than coal if leakage is properly contained.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmen...cts-natural-gas

Well said @bbrock .

@Chris914n6 that is a very thoughtful and admirable approach you have adopted. See, nailed it about you being a great fellow!

Unfortunately you better get used to those higher termperatures. We all better, not to mention more variable weather.

how much of your 10 year break even on the solar is tax credits? as a general contractor I have priced solar installs for customers a few times and that is usually a deal breaker. not everyone can qualify. NOBODY can pay retail for household solar and make sense of it.
Randy

~25%, so figure another 3-4 years to break even without the credit. If CA does nothing, the tax credits go down in 2021 and disappear after that—which was definitely a motivating factor.

Fwiw, we decided to buy the panels vs lease, which may not pencil out for someone else. There's no "one size fits all" on this, but I am glad we looked into it because where I quickly dismissed solar in the past, it made sense for this house. As noted above, we looked at the trajectory of electricity rate increases (historically and with an eye on PG&E's inevitable reckoning whether it's upgrades or settlements) as well as anticipated cost of new windows—a capital outlay vs essentially moving our electricity payment over to the solar company.

That's gonna leave a mark.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/epa-chief...8?mod=home-page

This is a brilliantly simple - and thought provoking - demonstration of a related issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXXcHKJvyhM...eature=youtu.be

I just wanted to add in my own experience of electric cars.

I live in Sweden and I dont drive very much, to work and back every day and a bit on the weekends. My commute is 10 miles one way and I drive about 12k miles per year.

Two years ago I was offered a company car from work and I wanted the cheapest monthly cost but still a car large enough for the whole family. I got a 2018 VW
Passat GTE wagon plug in hybrid.

Its got up to 31 miles of electric range which in practicality is probably is closer to 25 miles with heat/AC and my driving style. But it gets me to work and back in the summer on a single charge. I have the option to charge at work if needed because in the winters it wont do the return trip on a single charge when the temps go below freezing. It works really well. The petrol tank is 55 litres and the longest I have driven between refills is 2538 miles. Basically I do all the short trips on electric and only use the petrol engine on longer journeys. In electric mode its quick enough and you can go up to 70 mph on pure electric.

It works really well and when the lease goes out next year I will get another one. Ideally I would want the same car with usable electric range of around 60 miles.

My wife would agree.

Yep, that's a stumbling block if it remains in place. There are a number of the 50 states against the EPA's stance on this, and car manufacturers too (though there are also states that don't care, and manufacturers loving it).

Fwiw, I saw some of the previous MPG targets as unrealistic. But stripping CA of its special waiver to legislate for clean air is, in my opinion, a mistake given the vehicle population. I was a CARB hater with the best of them way back when, and still have some reservations about some of its policies, but I've come to see things differently—and have little doubt that one of the single most impactful changes implemented when it comes to clean air (yes, the catalytic converter) would have taken far, far longer to be implemented had it not been for the CA market leading when others didn't want to or said it didn't matter. Look at the lag period of "49-state" cars, and how long it took even Germany to require catalysts (late 1980s or early 1990s?).

Interestingly enough, those catalysts are also directly responsible for the second golden age of performance cars—because they targeted efficiency, which was eventually used to generate more horsepower. And, in time, a lot more. Remember when 200-210 hp from a 4.9-liter Mustang or 3.2-liter 911 were NA benchmarks? Now we have GT3s making 500 hp from 4.0 liters and 300+ hp V6 minivans...

^ Pretty incredible. Prompts me to wonder about using Sta-Bil in the gas tank!

I know a guy who had a first-gen Chevy Volt. The computer tracked when the tank was refilled, and started running the ICE more frequently when the fuel was approaching 90 days of age.

That is simply factually incorrect.

All that pronouncements from morons like that will do is make us more determined to succeed. Nothing that we’ve already accomplished has been possible based on those sorts of inane pronouncements.

As a sidenote – if the politicalization of science agencies doesn’t deeply disturb you as a citizen you’re clearly not paying adequate attention.

Hmm. Not meant as a personal attack but that statement sure seems like cherry picking.

CA CARB and 100% EVs by 2035 -- Good.
US EPA -- Bad

Sarcasm Alert: I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to "science" agencies getting politcal. As I whistle past the graveyard.

Is it just me or isn't all of this just political posturing?

No one is really interesed in the science. Minds are largely made up as was stated way back in this thread.

Science is not a static thing (unless we are talking about laws of physics, math, thermodynamics, etc.). "The Science" is all over the map. Whenever you see the statement "undisputed", "consensus", and the like in conjuction with a discussion of science you know politics is involed. Nothing is undisputed other than aforementioned "laws". The scientific method is a process of determination of truth, not a static statement of fact for all time. If & when it becomes a static statement for all time -- then and only then does it become a "law of . . ." Even then the laws of science are still challenged from time to time and are occasionally disproven and/or adjusted.

At this late point in the decline of our collective society I don't see many folks sincerly interested in the scientific method. It seems to me that science is now being used as the justification for whatever the tyranical whim of the day happens to be.

That's not really how it works. There are definitions of things like Theories, Laws, etc. A Law is provable. Science advances through research, review, and consensus. We get ourselves into trouble when we adopt an attitude of "my ignorance is as valid as your expertise"

But to avoid this politically-charged tangent and get back to the subject at hand: The worst thing that happens if we're too aggressive in enacting environmental protections is that we spend too much money making the world better for future generations. Way less risky than reacting too slowly.

There was a point in time at which consensus was that the earth was flat. Or that the Sun orbits the Earth. Each was challenged and the so called experts were proven wrong by those that dared challenge the experts with their so called ignorance.

That movement from research, to review, to accptance of a new consensus takes time and doesn't happen overnight. It may take decades or even centuries. The idea that we have to respond quickly and use the coersive threats of governement to accomplish the means to a politcal end is a false premise that has led us to where we are currently at.

It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.
[/quote]

Chinese electricity is mostly from coal. Last I looked they were finishing a new coal power plant on average once a week. Electric cars will only make their emissions worse.a

That is a conclusion unsupported by the full picture of their energy production, and if we are talking about the OP post also off topic.

As I've understood it, China's pivot to EVs is directly related to their recognition that their air quality is horrendous (which is plain to anyone who has traveled there for work) and the need to address it. Therefore, it's hard to imagine part of the plan is to replace ICE with EV + more coal—no matter what is going on in the here and now based on ongoing plans. But I'd be curious to hear more about China's plans for electricity development in the long run and/or parallel.

Point with that, and CA, is this: We won't see or benefit from real change 15-30 unless we start planning now. 2035 is 15 years away. I hardly call that rushed…

Remember the hole in the ozone?

I recall an article (or maybe opinion piece) that ICE LEV's tailpipe emissions are "cleaner" than the air in severely polluted areas.

Now, I'm not claiming this as fact, I just recall reading this and scoffing but not completely discounting it.

Are the US's really polluted areas less polluted than the cleanest tailpipe emissions of modern ICEs?

This comes up in marketing material from time to time (Subaru), and requires not treating greenhouse gases as pollution.

Are you really suggesting that citing the existing science as a reason to address greenhouse gas emissions is tryanical?

I'm merely stating that science isn't settled and that the attempt to use it for politcal purposes is not constructive.

I agree with this but quibble over the idea that all science is disputed and consensus isn't real. All science SHOULD be challenged because skepticism is one of the pillars of the scientific method, but there are lots of things that go undisputed because after skeptical review, no other scientists have been able to knock holes in it.

Newtonian physics, Evolution, and Climate change are three areas that have the broadest consensus I have seen. Sure, there is debate and argument over the fine points of all of these. For example, Newtonian law falls apart at tiny quantum scales but it still works reliably enough outside the quantum realm to send robots to other planets and predict how safe our cars are in a crash.

The politicization of science has 3 main sources:

- cherry picking data to skew toward a desired result. This is rampant across the political spectrum and I can attest from personal experience that ANY group will love you when you present data that supports their view but turn on you like rabid dogs when the data point a different direction.

- sowing confusion by focusing on small areas of disagreement while ignoring broad areas of consensus. This is a tactic perfected by the tobacco industry to exploit the skepticism, challenge, and debate inherent in science to trick the public into believing the science can't be trusted.

- implying parity to dissent. A common journalistic practice these days is to find an expert on a subject to interview but to be fair, find someone with a dissenting view as a counterbalance. What gets lost is that the dissenters may represent only a tiny percentage of the scientific community or way too often, they aren't even members of the scientific community at all (lacking credentials in the subject field). The public is left with the perception that the scientific community is split or undecided which is often far from the truth.

It's frustrating because I've seen the ability for science to inform wise decisions eroded drastically during my career due to the above factors. Critical thinking is becoming a lost art and scientists have yet to find a remedy. On top of that is the dynamic nature of science you rightly mention where science is constantly adjusting as new data become available, ideas are challenged, and consensus shifts. Unfortunately, that's the tide we have been swimming against with climate change and convincing people that EV might be a good idea after all.

Porsche was on to something in 1898....the P-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_P1

Science attempts to answer what.

Religion attempts to answer why.

Key words....attempts.


The latter is verboten on the World.....also politics....see Zachs and Clay's post.

Ev's are simpler. That's my truth...maybe not others.

The info I had came from a Chinese official with the embassy when I was there in Spring 2019. It was part of their explanation why they had to shut down the industry to be able to shut the coal plants during the Olympics. We did see a lot of small packaged nucs in high density housing areas. Apparently the hot water is also used to run the HVAC systems in the buildings.

While there is some hydro we were told that China completes about 50 4800mw coal fired power plants a year. Obviously you have different research than what we were given.

Not sure how it got off topic when the topic is the use of ev's.

A now aging 2015 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that cradle to grave carbon emissions from EV were lower than ICE even in regions where electricity is generated primarily from coal. A big reason is because even though ICE have gotten a lot cleaner for other pollutants, they still produce a lot of CO2 and it is easier to reduce carbon (and other pollution) emissions from a single coal stack than hundreds of thousands of tailpipes. Hard to say how well this applies to China since it depends on the efficiency and scrubbing capabilities of the coal plants. The general argument that running EV off coal electricity makes climate change worse has not been true for at least 5 years.

As a Nevada mechanic that has to deal with CA cars way too often I'm probably the most qualified to clear this debate.

CA regs are not some super forward thinking push. It's just demanding normal industry improvements 1 to 2 years early.

I'll reference my Nissan VQ30 engine swap. In 1995 the CA ecu added a CEL for the "canister purge control valve". In 1996 this became federal. The improvement is literally zero, but because of it CA has a one-off ecu and harness that is not consumer friendly.
CA is not helping the cause it's just making cars cost more. We the people would be better off with a single Federal standard.

Before you all start screaming "the cats" "the cats" CA mandated cats on carb'd cars, years before the industry was ready with electronic fuel management. Though to be fair, the big 3 have been historically slow to adopt the latest fuel management technology. But then the Federal cats were much better than the earlier CA cats, so in reality Californians paid a lot to test unproven tech. Remember the Thermal Reactor? How did that turn out? (hint )

Whoa - dude - are you really going on record as saying we don't have an understanding of what is happening? Are you really saying that what we've known about greenhouse gasses since the late 1800's isn't real?

Seriously?

That is historically inaccurate. You cannot simply claim that all of this would have happened in the normal course of business;

The nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (1966), oxides of nitrogen (1971), and particulate matter from diesel-fueled vehicles (1982);
Catalytic converters, beginning in the 1970s;
On-board diagnostic, or “check engine” light, systems, beginning with 1988 model-year cars;
A Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation (1990) that requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of ZEVs;
The nation’s first greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars (mandated by the Legislature in 2002 and approved by CARB in 2004); and
California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012), which reduces both conventional “criteria” and greenhouse gas pollutant emissions from automobiles.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history

Fair enough. But we have enough information—and sufficient resources—to make improvements. Which brings me back to leaving the campground as we found it or better.

And, fact is, there are already better, more efficient, less polluting ways to power our cars for 80-90+% of trips. That isn't true in all cases, or for everyone. Or for all applications. But…if home solar pencils out in Northern California, it likely pencils out in much of the southwest. And not only that, there are financial advantages for many, including our family. I doubt we're alone. I wouldn't have believed it a few years ago, based on quick math I had done. But I know better now.

And there are jobs to be created. Good jobs. I looked at the home battery installed last night. 100% made in the USA—and it looks really well made. The crew installing the rooftop solar are driving a nice work van plus two nice personal cars. Nothing extravagant, but nice. My wife noticed, too. That's how it should be.

Perhaps more importantly, lessons learned and scale benefits might either be applied elsewhere to the point that they do make sense for those places—but that has to start somewhere. If CA ends up doing more than its part, offsetting places that can't, I am cool with that—because I care about the Union. And Canada, too.

Let's wait until we have it all figured out didn't get us to the moon, or WWII.

So let's do this thing.

(And, yes, I recognize I may be buying an E12 530i with thermal reactors in the form of a battery. Let's hope not, but someone's got to bite the bullet)




Agree a single federal standard would be better. But not if it's dumbed down. Just as what works here doesn't work elsewhere, what works in, say, Iowa, may not work here. CA has 40 million people—it's one of the largest new-car markets in the world and one of the worst at public transportation (GM played no small part in that, btw). And then there are the microclimates, which have an impact on how our smog works. So, CA has to deal with more emissions than other states but has little say or sway over the other 49 states. CA is also the source of a lot of the food for the rest of our Union. And coastal smog goes right to our farmlands.

Thermal reactors and early cats weren't good—no question about it. But they led to something that literally saved untold lives and improved many, many more. So were they bad, in the big picture? Should we have kept waiting until we had a perfect fix, or got moving? The big three aren't the only slow movers—other car manufacturers didn't bother adding cats until they were forced to. There was little if any incentive to do so, and more likely disincentive.

Generally speaking, I am for smaller government and free markets, but few who advocate loudly for both recognize the logical end of that, or that economic interests in the short term often block societal (and economic) interests in the long term. The emissions standards of 1968-1978 were "too soon" for the technology, arguably, but they forced the technology. Do I think it would have happened anyway? No. I really don't. And certainly not as quickly as it did.

Except, those views were dictated by the church and those who dared to challenge them were scientists.

Your analogy falls flat when applied to today's YouTube "experts" trying to challenge actual science.

In fact, it's pretty much a reversal of what you wrote above.
Back then, make-believe was challenged by science.
Today, science is challenged by make-believe.

"my ignorance is as valid as your expertise" is the new motto and social media has done a great disservice to society by perpetuating that view.

I knew someone would say that...

Federal EPA

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was a merger of the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board. That same year, the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was enacted.


The LA smog was/is a good motivator and the research led to new understanding and big changes, but you cannot say it would have never happened without the CA mandate.


Sorry bud, CA is not as awesome as you think it is. That webpage qualifies as a fluff piece. Plus NV still requires a smog check on 67-75 vehicles

From the CARB site "[CA] including a Zero Emission Vehicle mandate that will clean up the transportation sector and put close to 1.5 million plug-in or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the roads by 2025"
257k EVs registered in 2019, 100k of those new. Not looking good on that mandate either....

-looks like you forfeited on the carbon footprint bet

Would you be willing to agree with me that in many ways the Church was a defacto government during Newton's life that was attempting to use it's power to influence and/or control science?

Couple of things I was thinking about:

Will there be a run on new cars in 2034 leading to short supply and insane dealer markups?

Will CA make it more difficult to register a car bought in another state? (lets say you live in Colorado and for some insane idea what to or have to relocate to CA)

How can I make a profit from this planned bill right now?

I for one am not too terribly concerned about the new legislation, I will be 70 in 2035 and doubt I'll be in the market for a new vehicle, if I am I won't complain.

I'd have no problem owning an electric vehicle right now, or even better a hybrid. A few nights ago the wife and kids and I went shopping, I saw a newer Prius with some nice aftermarket alloys and I mentioned that I'd daily drive that car. My wife and girls thought I was mentally ill, no idea why my wife is so dead set against them.

I see CA more as greasing the wheels for federal regulation. CA is the largest car consumer state in the second largest car consumer country so has a lot of influence on the economics of making cars. CA passes a regulation and the manufacturers either comply or loose a lot of market share. Now they have invested whatever to add the thingy CA wanted but there is the cost of having to make special cars for just one state so at that point, it may even be to their benefit to ask the federal government to step in to standardize things before they wind up having to make 10 or 20 versions of a model to meet individual state mandates. CA has a muscle it can flex that ripples beyond the state and they use it. I'm glad they do it for a lot of things but California, if you put Prop 65 health warnings on EVERYTHING, it means NOTHING. I'm sitting here with a Pertronix Ignitor box and there it is. I wasn't planning to eat it or take a bath with this thing but thanks I guess...