It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study links heavy diesel exhaust to lung cancer

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I love the way diesel exhaust smells, at least compared to gasoline exhaust. Diesel can be made cleaner with better fuels and better exhaust systems. I personally think the risk to diesel exhaust and cancer has been hyped. Europe has many more diesel cars and trucks on the road than the US and I don't believe have more per capita lung cancer cases than Americans. All internal combustion is going to have exhaust with nasty stuff in it.

The diesel we use in our vehicles is clean when you compare it to bunker fuel that is used in freighters crossing the ocean and some of our power plants.

edit on 4-3-2012 by jrod because: +1




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
Has air quality gone up and lung cancer rates dropped?



Yes, cancer rates have dropped - at one point, they were higher than heart attack rates but came down. The air quality in developed nations has improved, probably due to new regulations, but pollution in developing countries is becoming a huge problem - especially in big cities, and especially with children who live in the inner city slum areas without any access to any fresh air.

...You do have some good points, but your arguments are all over the map - maybe you could narrow and focus. ...My only point is that diesel exhaust is dangerous to health. Period. Not comparatively, and without any considering the alternatives or economics.

...As I said in my last post and as others have pointed out, ultra-fine particulates and nanoparticles get through exhaust filters (actually, newer filters re-burn the exhaust, creating finer particulates). …It's another conundrum.

Can we maybe move forward more productively?




edit on 4/3/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 



I personally think the risk to diesel exhaust and cancer has been hyped.


Nope, it's real and the besides, the biggest dangers come from the ultra-fine particulates and nanoparticles. One of the reasons I'm passionate about this is that one breath of the stuff just kills me (metaphorically speaking - so far I've managed to survive).



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


I read somewhere on ATS* that we saw a spike in lung cancer rates after we started testing nukes. People down range/wind would breathe in radioactive air and there were much higher rates of lung cancer in areas down wind of nuclear test ranges. This correlation was never made public and I believe cigarettes got the blame because when the the spike in lung cancer rates happened around the same time cigarettes started getting bad press.

*I am about to run out the door or I would search for that thread.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Never said it was safe, but I really doubt the exhaust from diesel engines is worse than gasoline exhaust. Both engines work almost the same, the fuel/air mixture goes into a piston and ignites, just no spark plugs for the diesel engine.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


You're probably right - I'm not saying diesel is the only culprit - not at all! ...All these contaminants and pollutions tend to team up against us once they get inside our cells. The ultra-fine particulates and nanoparticles are known to be especially bad because of that "team" effect.



The main particulate fraction of diesel exhaust consists of fine particles. Because of their small size, inhaled particles may easily penetrate deep into the lungs. The rough surfaces of these particles makes it easy for them to bind with other toxins in the environment, thus increasing the hazards of particle inhalation.






edit on 4/3/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/3/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 



I really doubt the exhaust from diesel engines is worse than gasoline exhaust.


Kinda like, "How would you rather die? Bullet, lethal injection, or...?"

...I do think the algae diesel LeonoraTenen is promoting might be a bit better than standard diesel - if it loses the endocrine disruptors and carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic chemicals. (Which it may, but who knows? ...No references.)

And anyway, we still have the particulate and nano-particle problem - hugely dangerous, and not to be dismissed.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Looks like it is clear at this point that:

1) all internal combustion generates a similar threat, due to micro/fine/nano-particles.

2) diesel is no worse than gasoline and shouldn't be picked on as the main threat.

3) there have been no alternatives presented or proposed by the OP'er as to how we can help the scenario. Just that is bad and that diesel engines need to go away.

4) diesel engines aren't going anywhere for the time being, near, distant future... who knows, but they're not going to go away soon.

5) don't be this guy



6) don't be this lady: [sorry OP if this is you.
]




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LeonoraTenen
 


That second video is hilarious. That lady has no clue. Kind of reminds me of the South Park "Smug" episode with her I drive a Prius so I'm better than you attitude.

Real trucks don't have spark plugs.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
It's funny how tobacco smokers are now treated like lepers, when the internal combustion engine spews out all this junk in far more massive quantities. I guess smokers are an easier target than Big Oil and the automotive industry.

What I find even funnier is how willing the general public was willing to go witch hunting against smokers, kind of scary really, considering tobacco is still a legal product. The public's vehemence against smokers even surprised the anti-smoking organizations. I guess all the government has to do is evil eye a certain group, and everyone else goes nuts.

Note: I am not advocating smoking, but if you think all lung cancer deaths are related to tobacco, you're in denial.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 



if you think all lung cancer deaths are related to tobacco, you're in denial.


The risks from diesel are truly horrific, partly because of the chemicals, partly because of the fine particulates and nanoparticles.



...even workers with lower exposures had a 50 percent increased risk, wrote lead author Debra Silverman, an NCI epidemiologist.

"Our findings are important not only for miners but also for the 1.4 million American workers and the 3 million European workers exposed to diesel exhaust, and for urban populations worldwide," Silverman wrote.

She pointed to some highly polluted cities in China, Mexico and Portugal that in past years have reported diesel exposure levels that over long periods could be comparable to those experienced by miners with lower exposures.

...Litigation from some mining companies had delayed release of the study findings.


...a 20 year delay.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by gambon
 



firstly the op source is referring to HEAVY diesel, …most european diesel is far cleaner than usa diesel , however this cleaness does make more of the small particles i think so mebbe a bit of a catch 22


Yes - it's a catch-22. …Looks like the engine is the biggest problem, not the fuel.

…The engine generates small particulates that cross the membrane barriers, get into the bloodstream, make clots and more - causing heart attacks, strokes and other health problems. Kids, the sick and elderly are especially at risk. It looks like nano-particles are even worse than the fine particulates that have already been studied.#




It's the size of the particulates that's the big problem, NOT just their chemical composition.



just burning stuff seems to be the problem , in reality it was the anti soot laws (badly thought through) which created the tech to make the particles smaller, from the larger sootier particles that folks objected to.
edit on 11-3-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by gambon
 



firstly the op source is referring to HEAVY diesel, …most european diesel is far cleaner than usa diesel , however this cleaness does make more of the small particles i think so mebbe a bit of a catch 22


Yes - it's a catch-22. …Looks like the engine is the biggest problem, not the fuel.

…The engine generates small particulates that cross the membrane barriers, get into the bloodstream, make clots and more - causing heart attacks, strokes and other health problems. Kids, the sick and elderly are especially at risk. It looks like nano-particles are even worse than the fine particulates that have already been studied.

It's the size of the particulates that's the big problem, NOT just their chemical composition.

[/quote

If its the size thats the trouble , why does the legislation demand they be made that size , from the sootier particles they used to be , via use of dpf filters etc?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
here is a an old school study on the actual immediate effects of diesel


Diesel Gas Chambers
Ideal for Torture — Absurd for Murder

Friedrich Paul Berg

1. Diesel Exhaust and Zyklon B

Most Nazi gassings were supposedly committed with Diesel exhaust rather than cyanide or Zyklon B. Although this is contrary to popular perceptions about the Holocaust story, Diesel exhaust has been dominant, at least in terms of numbers of victims, in the claims of holocaust scholars since the 1960's. The Diesel allegations did, however, gain some public notoriety with the prosecution of American citizen John Demjanjuk. Demjanjuk was accused of having murdered at least 875,000 Jews with Diesel exhaust at the alleged extermination camp at Treblinka in 1942/43. [1] A nationally syndicated essay from one of America's best-known newspaper columnists Patrick Buchanan raised the subject of Diesel gassing to a fever pitch in the American press. Buchanan, a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, claimed that Diesel engines could not kill at all. [2] His sweeping statement, which was far too broad, brought him massive criticism but not for any valid technical reasons. [3]

In 1992, a working draft paper authored by Walter Lüftl, President of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Engineers, described mass murder with Diesel exhaust as a "sheer impossibility."[4] Shortly thereafter, he substantiated his view as to the relative harmlessness of Diesel exhaust in an essay,[5] which was publicly attacked as well.[6]

For readers familiar with auto emission issues, much of what follows represents a kind of 'overkill' and rightly so. But in order to put the Holocaust monster to its final, well-deserved rest – at least its Diesel portion – one must be rigorous and even exhaustive. Since Diesel gassings are not technically impossible, we must actually show how it could have been done hypothetically, and then, just how thoroughly unreasonable it is to believe Nazis or anyone would have ever used the necessary technology.


oh well skip all the histrionics and scroll down to the technical part re particulate


Diesels tend to smoke, especially under heavy load. This is not due to any inherent inefficiency of Diesels. On the contrary, Diesels are extremely efficient. The smoke is the result of the nature of Diesel combustion and the heavier fuels which Diesels use compared to gasoline engines.


Graph 7: Liquids and solids exhausted from engine per hr, and measured smoke.[56] The heavy vertical line marking a fuel/air ratio of 0.055 (air/fuel ratio 18:1) has been added by the author. (Click to enlarge)

The solid heavy lines in Graphs 4-7 represent the smoke limit that manufacturers have found necessary to protect their engines from excessive wear. As a practical matter, a Diesel cannot operate to the right of the vertical lines in Graphs 4 and 5 (fuel/air ratio of 0.055 = air/fuel ratio of 18:1) with liquid fuels because the internal accumulations of smoke solids would destroy the engine within a short time and would stall the engine.[58] Many manufacturers are more conservative and limit their engines to fuel/air ratios below 0.050.


www.nazigassings.com...


edit on 11-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
from the above link
of course this could all be to avoid liability on the part of the dieselers but I thought well at least it's studies
could diesels be getting escape goated like tobacco has been?


"Although it is accepted that there are potential hazards arising from the emission of noxious gases in the exhaust gases of Diesel engines, the degree to which these are controlled in British coal mines has proved to be very effective.. An examination of ALL safety records has revealed that no person has suffered any harmful effects either temporarily or permanently as a direct result of breathing any toxic gas emitted from any vehicle powered by a Diesel engine."

Another quote from the technical literature summarizes much of what can be found there. The following is from an American essay by Dennis S. Lachtman, Director for Health Engineering for the EIMCO Mining Machinery company in a section subtitled: "NO significant human hazard seen in over 20 studies."[62]

"A number of studies evaluating human response to exposure of Diesel have included experience among Diesel bus workers, Diesel railroad workers, and metal and non-metal miners working with Diesel production equipment and underground. There are more than 20 human health studies involving working populations exposed to Diesel exhaust emissions. As can be seen from a careful review of these studies, NO SIGNIFICANT health hazards have been associated with exposures to Diesel exhaust emissions.

More recently, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has reported on epidemiological studies it has performed in underground mines. One of these studies included an MSHA [63] and NIOSH joint study of the relationship between the underground environments in 22 metal and non-metal mines looking at the health of more than 5000 miners. This comprehensive study focuses on the health effects of both silica dust and other substances including those found in Diesel exhaust. … The researchers reported that the data showed an ABSENCE of harmful effects from Diesel exhaust."



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 



in reality it was the anti soot laws (badly thought through) which created the tech to make the particles smaller, from the larger sootier particles that folks objected to.


You may be right, but -

1. The soot alone is bad enough, and carcinogenic too, at least - the contaminants are known to have numerous different adverse health effects;

2. A previous poster said we're seeing nanoparticles now because we have the technology, but didn't before. Seems clear that the 'burner' in the new filters does create nanoparticles, but maybe it just ups the concentration. ...Any comparative research? Would it be a moot point, given combustion's underlying, general toxicity?


Thanks,
sofi



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

reply to post by Danbones
 



could diesels be getting escape goated like tobacco has been?


Entirely possible - but as with tobacco, the risks -and toxins- are real. Scapegoating is all about blaming ONE perp - and letting the rest go free.

Not a solution.

S&
for finding that study.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


thanks Crow
i didn't want to get sidetract off into that other subject

one point..the fuel PRIOR to ignition:
I spend a lot of time in an island area where one man ran the fuel delivery boat for years
gas to a few stops, but primarily home fuel and diesel

he use to stand by the nozzle

at about age fifty he came down with several different cancers and various other medical conditions and croaked.
he was a nice man (RIP)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



I spend a lot of time in an island area where one man ran the fuel delivery boat for years
gas to a few stops, but primarily home fuel and diesel

he use to stand by the nozzle

at about age fifty he came down with several different cancers and various other medical conditions and croaked.
he was a nice man (RIP)


Not an unusual story. Unfortunately.

As I said earlier, I know diesel is bad bad bad because I get really sick really fast when I breathe the exhaust. ...Do my best to avoid traffic areas.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


yes but the larger particles are able to be expelled via sneezing coughing etc , they do not pass the genetic barriers like benzene rings etc



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join