Diesel fumes cause cancer, says WHO

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchesfromwall
reply to post by aBeneGesserit
 


Yes, the article is kind of like a "no duh" moment!


However, it depends on where you live, I suppose.

I'm in the US, and very few cars are on diesel now. It's mostly transport semi-trucks here, I don't know, actually I have a hard time remembering diesel autos in the US.

It is much worse when I travel overseas, and especially to certain countries.

I can definitely smell and choke on the fumes, and at times. perhaps dizzy enough from them, see them.


You are so right that it is so much worse than cigarette passive smoking!





Thankyou, I totally agree with you too and will also say that you must've been visiting my area in central England.

I live by a really, really busy crossroads/junction and although I'm well aware that there's cars continually sat at the traffic lights, it wasn't until I paid a rare visit to a nearby park that I realised just how bad it is.
The park is quite big, has a couple of little lakes, and a lot of trees. I spent 2 to 3 hours there and as I was walking towards home and I got closer to the junction I had to cross, I was hit by the smell and fumes of all the cars at the traffic lights and very nearly passed out. What shocked me most was the thought that I'm actually living and still breathing amongst it all.







edit on 12-6-2012 by aBeneGesserit because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I really doubt there is much difference in burning gas or burning diesel...all toxic...both work well for murder and suicide, I will leave the car drivers alone if I can enjoy my smoke.

Someday when technology finds another way to fuel cars and we all find utopia...then they can start on smokers again...how's that?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xertious
 


That's the problem, everything we are doing is upping the cancer and diabetes rates. Neither are caused by being fat but being fat can be a side effect of these metabolic problems that cause these diseases. The chances of someone getting cancer in their lifetime is approaching forty percent. Same with diabetes. Death from cancer still isn't high and it's hard to find the percentage of people with cancer. I can't seem to find clear statistics of cancer figures in autopsies summaries along with how many people are treated without dying from cancer.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Thanks for the info, i pump diesel into equipment all day long, i just wonder if unburnt fumes have the same effect, i smell like diesel all the time.
edit on 12-6-2012 by dnaobs because: stupid me



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Xertious
 


That's the problem, everything we are doing is upping the cancer and diabetes rates. Neither are caused by being fat but being fat .


A minor correction.

There are two types of diabetes, one of which (Type2) is definitely associated with overweight as it is, in many cases, the enlargement of the stomach that restricts the pancreas from supplying enough insulin.

The growth in the type1 diabetes is as much down to early and more accurate diagnosis as anything else.

Cancer is a whole different ball game and there I have to agree wholeheartedly.

In the UK it was the burning of coal that produced particulates that brought about the usual winter smog's and the subsequent clean air acts. I am not sure though that this act reduced cancers, I will have to look that up. Interesting.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dnaobs
 


ya same ,,retired now,,was a Furnace Guy,,hated sucking , raw fuel in frozen oil lines,,
but God willing,, im ok,,
remember Asbestos lining for pipes lol,,
and ya i know,, its the chance we all took,,,
by the same token,,how much soot ,,black soot,, did i blow,
when i got home,,
for 20+ years,,,

passive cig smoke,, ya ok,,, geez,, if only the ones that did those studies ,,studied us ,, instead of some ,,"other average person",,who knows we might have skewed the results.

ya,,retired.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aBeneGesserit
It's about bloody time!!!

I've been waiting years for someone in the media to actually print the truth about the crap that comes out from exhausts, whether it's diesel or petrol.

"It's on the same order of magnitude as passive smoking," said Kurt Straif, director of the IARC department that evaluates cancer risks..." Bull!!! It far outweighs passive smoking.

What I've always said is " you'll get more crap on your lungs, standing at a bus stop for 10 minutes, than you will standing next to a smoker."


Is 'I've always said' better than peer-reviewed science these days?


Stand in an enclosed space with a smoker and you'll stink of smoke, you may well get a bad cough but you won't die - stand in an enclosed space with a car running and you'll be dead within, what? half an hour? It's a flickin' no brainer!!!


Sigh. You think the amount of exhaust you inhale from a care OUTSIDE is comparable to standing in a locked space?


Did people really think that long-term, every day of your lives exposure to vehicle fumes didn't cause fatal illness?


Who is saying it doesnt?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Some questions -

1/ This is the WHO reporting through the MSM - can it be trusted in the first place??

2/ What are the downstream effects likely to be?? Who is really going to benefit from this?



Well, one thing it potentially does is clamp down on home-made biofuels like veggie grease and the like.

?

If i recall correctly, diesel is less refined that common gas. Is that related? Is this a way for the industry to futher weigh down the price of deisel to make it less competitive with regular?

It is the dominant fuel of choice for major trucking. Is it a way to lamp down on those industries?

Small-time contractors, farmers, etc, all rely on the stuff, and will have to pay whatever taxes get levied onto the product. Pinches out the little guy.
edit on 12-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


the dominant fuel of choice for major trucking.
also the dominate fuel of no choice for heating my house.

which co-incidently is $1000.00 Canadian $ too fill a 200 gallon oil tank.

which ,,thanks to Wall Street is a freely traded Commodity.

it is not a commodity,,it is a necessesity,, just like fuel for the trucks that bring us stuff to eat.

not hard too see there agenda.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


you heat yr home with diesel?

Seriously?

or are you thinking of home heating oil?
edit on 12-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


About time, imho. Diesel is known to cross the lung-blood barrier, get into the bloodstream and cause heart attacks and stroke. Never mind cancer, this stuff kills quick way more often.

[And it makes me really sick really fast. Wish it was illegal.]



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 

There are two kinds of type 2 diabetes. One where the cells cannot connect to the energy source which is I think insulin resistance and another where the other is where the insulin levels get so high that it actually shuts down the pancreas. The resistance is by something blocking the charge and it's usually Propylene or some sort of benzene product that causes it. It's like a weird oil/emulsifier that stops the attachment to deliver energy. Parabens can be natural. Too much is no good but a little does wonder and is needed for heart regulation. I could have a few of the names mixed up, it's late. I try to translate chemical names into things that I kind of understand. If the body isn't getting the energy for the cells and organs it will send out a hunger signal. Attractants added to food to attract you to food cause you to eat more. One such chemical is Propylene Glycol and it's natural similar chemistry of Vanilla. Our bodies know Vanilla though so it knows how to react better to it. Even though we have been eating Propylene glycol since the 20's in some foods we never got used to it totally as a society. There are other natural substances that possess this action, possibly Locust bean and who knows what else. Carrageen is more like the plant version of MSG and effects brain chemistry. Fluoride can effect the thyroid if too high but just makes people tired and this can make people fatter because they don't do as much. You name it, it's so complex and such a mess that I doubt if anyone other than the Germans or Finns can figure this one out. Too bad that this country doesn't recognize the research of these other countries unless it creates patents for their Pharma companies.

Type one diabetes is hereditary, I know people who have it. That is a real genetic disease as far as my research shows. It can be slightly controlled by things that stimulate the pancreas. Horseradish can help that but even horseradish is not a pancea. Those people need insulin most times.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
This is interesting to read.

The area under the M6 motorway around Junction 9 & 10 near Walsall, West Midlands has apparently the highest incidence of breast cancer practically anywhere in the world. That stretch of the motorway which is elevated above the surrounding area is correspondingly one of the busiest roads for traffic anywhere on the planet.

The Manor Hospital at Walsall, which serves the populace around the area is a world leading treatment centre for breast cancer apparently.

Been saying for years there had to be a connection, maybe WHO just backed this up a little.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
We have a dirty car garage/auto repair shop (Khan Auto Repairs and MOT Station) across from our flats(about 10m away). None of the residents in our close can breathe properly in the morning, woman down the stair has just been diagnosed with copd. They pour motor oil on the street/side walk and fix other peoples cars in our parking bays all day long(7am-8pm), engines running and smoke pouring from dodgy exhausts all the time. We just cant seem to get the local council(Glasgow City Council) or housing association(Govanhill housing association) to do anything about it, main reason is because the people who own it are immigrants who just keep changing there name, or say there are out of the country and in there own for the next 6-8 months.

Now that the world health organization has Diesel down as a carcinogen do you think we may(The residents) have a leg to stand on, as to getting this chop shop closed down?
edit on 13-6-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
IT only took them 40 yrs to figure it out...Back in the Seventies during the oil crisis...the switch to diesel went into full gear....a by product that once again would be beneficial to the oil companies....another great payoff.....whooo hoooo If one looks into cancer rates you will get the picture.


Lp2 Cancer deaths in 1970 and in 1997
The unaltered or crude cancer death rate per 100,000 US population for the year 1970 is 162.8. Multiply this rate by the US population of that year, 203,302,031 and divide by 100,000, we obtained the total cancer deaths of that year, 330,972. Divide this number by the number of days in a year, we obtain the average number of Americans who died of cancer in 1970 at 907.

Twenty years later, the unaltered cancer death rate for the year 1990 is 505,322, the total population, 248,709,873. The cancer death rate per 100,000 population rose to 203.2. The daily cancer death rate was 1384.

Another six years later, the unaltered estimated total cancer deaths for 1996 was 554,740, the estimated population for that year is 264,755,000. The cancer death rate per 100,000 population for 1996 is 209.5.The daily cancer death rate rose to 1520.

The total number of unaltered cancer deaths in 1997 is 564,800; the US population was 268,921,733. The cancer death rate per 100,000 population for 1997 was 210.0. The number of cancer death per day was 1547.


Source

then we look at diesel usage...shall we...


Diesel engines are manufactured in two-stroke and four-stroke versions. They were originally used as a more efficient replacement for stationary steam engines. Since the 1910s they have been used in submarines and ships. Use in locomotives, trucks, heavy equipment and electric generating plants followed later. In the 1930s, they slowly began to be used in a few automobiles. Since the 1970s, the use of diesel engines in larger on-road and off-road vehicles in the USA increased. As of 2007, about 50 percent of all new car sales in Europe are diesel.[3]


source

I know this was a bit crude(oil) but it is a simple comparison.....but the evidence does exist......

My mother has smoked all her life....and still going at 85.

My dad never smoked...but drove trucks all his life...died of cancer.....you do the maths.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Great!

We're getting a "diesel tax"...



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I had three friends that delivered fuel oil and they all had diabetes. Women used to have more diabetes than men but were cooking with oils years ago so I see a possible relation. The Benzene ring has some bad chemicals associated with it that cause health problems. Propylene or polyethylene compounds seem to be bad for diabetes. Cancer and diabetes are related somehow, the receptors being interfered with lower our ability to fight cancer.

I doubt if my three friends chose delivering fuel oil as their profession because they had diabetes, it is good to look at things many ways though. Maybe the cure to cancer is in finding what chemicals cause insulin resistant type 2 diabetes, it's a good place to start.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
My father's family share a heritage of working on the rails. My grandfather and father spent their entire working lives around diesel fuel and exhaust. My grandfather lived till 85 and died of natural causes and my father, 73, is still kicking. He has no noticible lung problems even after working in a mine as a trammer.

My wife's family are all farmers, no farm in Canada has used steam or muscle power for nearly 80 years and yet all of those farmers who die of lung diseases are those who were hardcore smokers and drinkers. My father-in-law is a mechanic as well as a farmer and he's fit and more in health than I am.

From my two examples I can tell you that all of us have lived in small rural communities, with fresh air and no congestion. After work is done, every man in my family came home to a clean air environment. On the farm, when the machines are down for the day, the toxic fumes blow away into the cool night. This report plainly shows that constant 24 hour, all year exposure of diesel exhaust, like in the city, especially in the core, is harmful. Buses should all go green and the only diesel engines allowed in the city are heavy equipment (there is no other energy alternative, save a nuclear reactor, that could match the power found in diesel to power these massive engines and be cheap to use). Restrict diesel in the city.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cheerfulnihilist
 


That would be another avenue of research to take...to see the correlation between city dwellers and country folk to see if there is a higher cancer rate amongst city folk....It may just show a trail to follow.....hard to say...I know my one example is not the end all and be all....I am the youngest of nine kids...and statistically speaking we all have a chance of contracting some deceases....i am 50 and all my brothers and sisters are still with us.....But, I do believe there is a relation between cancer and diesel...but i guess time will tell.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
As a wife of a over the road truck driver for the past 12 years. My husband is exposed to diseal fumes on a dailey basis. He has no cancer and smoked cigerattes up until a month ago. He's been to the doctor had had blood work and other tests which determined that he's kidney's are dehydrated. He was advised to drink more water. I've been researching ways to keep the body hydrated.

I believe there are those that want us to believe that we can get cancer from anything other than the Nuclear Power plants like the one in Japan. Not to mention Chernobyl and all the past nuclear testing that has gone on world wide.

I believe that diseal fumes can be unpleasant and over exposure to anything will make you sick.

If the government is the one in charge of overseeing the polluting it's okay don't question it if they say all is okay.

But if it's someone that they don't make money off of or control then you better watch out they will be coming with regulations and fines...not to mention using blogs, advertising and the news media to turn you into the bad guy.

The question I have is who benefits from making diesel users the bad guy? or "WHO" benefits from making people believe that disesel fumes cause cancer?





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join