Diesel Fumes Cause Cancer

[Pup]

You guys are the engineers and the ones that seem to think you have all the answers, so come up with something that doesn't include breathing carcinogenic fumes as a by-product. Hell take it a step further, pick up the challenge to find something better than any internal combustion engine.

I'm no engineer, but...



Considering...

A combination of the recession and growing awareness in the shipping industry about climate change emissions encouraged many ship owners to adopt "slow steaming" to save fuel two years ago. This lowered speeds from the standard 25 knots to 20 knots, but many major companies have now taken this a stage further by adopting "super-slow steaming" at speeds of 12 knots (about 14mph).

Travel times between the US and China, or between Australia and Europe, are now comparable to those of the great age of sail in the 19th century. American clippers reached 14 to 17 knots in the 1850s, with the fastest recording speeds of 22 knots or more.

Makes one think, yes? I think there are a couple of companies that are sell retrofit parasails for cargo ships that supposedly allow them to cut fuel use by 30% or so.

[xxChrisxx]

I've kind of reached the limit of my knowledge on this subject.

Leave it at that Chris

Are you so intellectually bankrupt that you have to take a quote out of context to achieve some warped sense of victory?
If you are, there is no chance for meaningful discourse.

[Pup]

So overall an increase of 3.5 people per 100,000 in a given year will develop cancer as a result of diesel fumes.

Which is 10,974 people in the US; 245,735 worldwide. Per year, which means that over a 70 year lifespan, that's an additional 768,180 people with cancer in the US; 17,201,450 worldwide.

Sometimes relative risk doesn't tell the whole story. I think Strad has a point.

[xxChrisxx]

Which is 10,974 people in the US; 245,735 worldwide. Per year, which means that over a 70 year lifespan, that's an additional 768,180 people with cancer in the US; 17,201,450 worldwide.

Sometimes relative risk doesn't tell the whole story.

So if that risk justifies a call for banning of diesels? With nothing viable to replace them.
Why not ban the car altogether? The risk is 10 times higher, approx 1 in 10k per year.
And that's fatal accidents.

What I am trying to do, and not expressing myself too well, is to gauge peoples opinions on objective risk vs benefit of diesels. How much risk is too much risk?

To me, the low risk is more than offset by the fact we have to get around somehow, and diesels is now as vital as petrol (more so in Europe where most new cars are diesels).
Strad obviously feels this risk vs reward is not worth it.
Green nutters really would ban the car altogether.


You say that risk doesn't tell the whole story, could you elaborate on this?

[Pup]

You've got a straw man, a false choice, bad math, moving the goalposts, and an appeal to ridicule all in the same post.

No offense, but I think I've just been reminded why I've been avoiding this thread.

Strad, you're on your own. Good luck.

[strad]

He's lame and I don't care what they do for me saying so.

[riff_raff]

How do you account for the fact that while the global use of fossil fuels over the past 100 years has increased year after year, the lifespan of the average person has also increased dramatically? Is this evidence that fossil fuel use increases human lifespan?

Based on the evidence, I'd say the science is settled. And anyone that disputes this obvious fact is just a science denier.

See how the global warming game is played?

[mzivtins]

=D> i would like to congratulate these guys on now thinking that breathing any gas from combustion is going to --- you up... come on, you have to be stupid to think that breathing in anything other than clean air isn't going to be bad for you.

The way i see it, if you can smell it, you shouldn't breathe it in (although petrol smells gorgeous )

But i dont mind about this story much, cars are getting much better these days, the newest deisels dont smell like the older ones

[olefud]

[quote="strad"][quote]The World Health Organization announced Tuesday that diesel fumes may cause cancer. The fumes may be ruled as much of a public health threat as secondhand smoke.


There’s a major weasel word in this announcement, i.e. “may”. May denotes that the probability is neither 1 nor 0, but can be anything there between. If they don’t have a better handle than “may”, I’ll take low-grade protective measures. If they have better information, they need to provide a more specific risk probability.

To take advantage of a crisis, sometimes you have to create one.

[Pup]

CNN said 'may'.

The WHO said, "the Working Group’s conclusion was unanimous: diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in humans."

To take advantage of a controversy, sometimes you have to create one.

[olefud]

CNN said 'may'.

The WHO said, "the Working Group’s conclusion was unanimous: diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in humans."

To take advantage of a controversy, sometimes you have to create one.

OMG, I've been exposed to diesel exhaust fumes; according to the Working Group I have lung cancer! Rather like cyanide causes death in humans.

I'd be a bit more comforted -if alarmed- with a reasoned, properly qualified description of the risk.

[Pup]

What do you feel is poorly reasoned or unqualified about the report which you haven't read?

[xxChrisxx]

Not that I want to get drawn in on this again, as I don't feel as though I expressed myself well last time and have no wish to annoy or upset anyone. Though Olefud is making the same mistake I was and making an emotionally charged reply, his call for a bit of clarification is not unreasonable.

The report (as re-reported by the news people) states a correlation between increase in lung cancer and diesel exhaust fumes exists. There isn't really any disputing this, as they wouldn't lie.

Although an enlightening, the raw statement 'diesel fumes cause cancer' is not actually all that helpful in determining a course of action because it doesn't actually quantify risk, identify the measured criteria, or state the test conditions and controls (if any).

I've tried to find the proper paper containing the actual study that the WHO based their assessment on, but can't find it. If anyone has could they please post a link.

[Pup]

I've tried to find the proper paper containing the actual study that the WHO based their assessment on, but can't find it. If anyone has could they please post a link.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=diesel+exhaust+carcinogen&l=1

From the notes:

http://m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... 4.abstract

From that abstract:

Among never smokers, odd ratios were 1.0, 1.47 (95% CI = 0.29 to 7.50), and 7.30 (95% CI = 1.46 to 36.57) for workers with 15-year lagged cumulative REC tertiles of less than 8, 8 to less than 304, and 304 μg/m3-y or more, respectively.

For common exposure rates:

Occupations: http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... 5.full.pdf
Traffic: http://www.catf.us/resources/publicatio ... xhaust.pdf

[olefud]

What do you feel is poorly reasoned or unqualified about the report which you haven't read?

My problem is not so much with the concept, (I’ve long been concerned that partial combustion of diesel fuel produces micro particles carrying various cyclic and other dangerous molecules and compounds) as it is with the unsupported hyperbolic and unpoliced statements specifically mentioned. The statements mentioned are an affront to technology, let alone science.

Cancer is an important threat. As far as I know the cause(s) is actually unknown- the best evidence of cause is correlation rather than sound, direct proof. My theory is that insult to the epigenome turns on harmful genes that run amuck –but I have no proof.

So, I guess, my problem is that I am a bit galled by such a serious topic being “scientifically” reported in meaningless terms. This forum does an excellent job of maintaining the level of automotive technology discussion. Why compromise the standards on a collateral topic? Be it the experts or the press, we need to challenge and keep them honest.