Diesel Engine Exhaust Causes Lung Cancer: WHO

[TDIMeister]

Diesel Engine Exhaust Causes Lung Cancer: WHO

The review of older studies may not take into account advances in diesel technology over the last decade, Steve Hansen, a spokesman for the Diesel Technology Forum in Washington, said in an e-mailed statement. The group represents global diesel engine manufacturers, automakers and oil refiners.

Nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy-duty trucks and buses have been reduced by 99 percent and particulate emissions by 98 percent over the last 10 years, Hansen said.

Discuss. And keep it civil while at it.

 

[sirpuddingfoot]

I'll just leave this here: Study Finds Few Health Effects From New Technology Diesel Engines: HEI [2007+]

 

[oilhammer]

Meh, until cigarettes are banned, I'm not too worried.

 

[bluesmoker]

The study is reasoably fair, but all combustion produces PAH compounds (diesel, gasoline, fart lighting, pot smoking)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon

The problem is two fold, older diesels with no emission controls and modern cars tampered with to pollute just a bad or worse than the ancient diesels they replace

And yes I have egr delete, for the small cost of higher NOx, I have reduced all combustion products (CO, particulates, PAH compounds)

The real problem are the catless engines that belch black smoke (high levels of particulates and PAH

 

[bahiaeternal]

Diesel exhaust can cause cancer

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/health/diesel-fumes-cancer/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[tikal]

Probably with courtesy and patience we, TDI enthusiast, can educate other family, friends and public in general about the important differences between the cleaner newer diesel technology and previous diesel versions.

 

[rcnaylor]

Uh oh, what do we think of this article on diesel and cancer?

http://www.newser.com/story/147988/who-panel-diesel-exhaust-causes-cancer.html

The World Health Organization ... credible source? Legit study or one of those agenda driven things? Fails to compare diesel disads with gas disadvantages?

Overall it sounds bad to me, and I'm a guy who has lambasted Calif for their overly penal approach to diesel for years. But, if this is close to accurate, it has bad over tones for diesel as a good decision in the future.

Thoughts?

 

[rcnaylor]

Sorry, I didn't find this post until after I posted elsewhere. I'm sure the mods will fix that.

As to the article, are we sure the newer diesels are that much better?

The report above, from 2007, says:

The overall goals of ACES are to test the emissions of new technology diesel engines to determine not only whether they are achieving the expected substantial reductions in emissions and health effects, but also whether the new control technologies (that include particle filters and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel) are resulting in unintended increases in some components of the emissions. An earlier ACES report (available at www.crcao.org) found substantial reductions in particulate matter and other pollutants in the emissions from 2007 engines. Emissions characterization is also underway on 2010-compliant engines, which are expected to substantially further reduce levels of nitrogen oxides.
In the health studies, rats will continue to be exposed for their lifetime. In 2013, these investigators, along with others investigating potential vascular effects, will submit a comprehensive final report for peer review, providing the first systematic look at the effects of long-term exposure to diesel exhaust emitted by these new technology diesel engines.

I guess my real inquiry is to the comparision between gas and diesel. Just like with gas, you close yourself in a garage with it, its byproducts KILL you.

So, comparatively speaking, how bad is the cancer causing properties of diesel v. gas?

 

[Lightflyer1]

W.H.O. Declares Diesel Fumes Cause Lung Cancer

What will this do to diesel sales in the future?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/diesel-fumes-cause-lung-cancer-who-says.html?_r=1

 

[Ski in NC]

This article is cycling around (and reproducing) all over the web. And it is a study of previous studies... with some data going back to mines 50+ years ago. Nothing new revealed.

Lots of folks don't read too deeply and miss what is actually being put forth. They just see "diesel causes cancer", and then decide anything diesel is evil.

I think simple common sense tells you that in an urban setting with non-pollution controlled vehicles spewing soot, the air is not healthy. That's been true ever since smoke came from fire, regardless of the setting.

It's unfortunate this thing has gotten so much press when nothing new has been determined.

At least they made some sort of passing reference to the newer machines being cleaner.

 

[sirpuddingfoot]

From the link I posted in the second post:

The first results of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken of the health effects of exposure to new technology diesel engines has found no evidence of gene-damaging effects in the animals studied, and only a few mild effects on the lungs, according to a report issued today by the Health Effects Institute (HEI)1. The study – the Advanced Collaborative Engine Study (ACES) – is exposing rats and mice for 16 hours a day to emissions from a heavy duty diesel engine meeting stringent 2007 US EPA standards that reduce emissions of fine particles and other pollutants by over 90% from levels emitted by older engines.

The study found that exposures lasting one, three, and in some cases up to twelve months had effects on only a few of the many health markers tested; exposures will continue for the life time of the rats. The few effects that were reported for the rats were mild hyperplasia (cell proliferation) in the lungs and slightly reduced lung function, and were most consistent with exposure to nitrogen oxides in the engine exhaust, which are being further reduced under 2010 US EPA standards now in effect.

HD Diesel exhaust * 16 hours a day * 12 months = Mild effects + Reduced further as of 2 years ago = DILLIGAF?

 

[LiLredTDI]

Found this same article this morning in the Washington Examiner, was actually just going to post it as well.

 

[wxman]

There's another study which shows that just a DOC eliminates mutagenicity (a rough indicator of carcinogenicity) of gas-phase diesel emissions (Götz A. Westphal et al, “Mutagenicity of Diesel Engine Exhaust Is Eliminated in the Gas Phase by an Oxidation Catalyst but Only Slightly Reduced in the Particle Phase.” Environmental Science & Technology (2012)). The abstract is available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es300399e.

So between DOC eliminating gas-phase mutagenic emissions and DPF eliminating particles to background levels, I don't see what's left in diesel exhaust that could be carcinogenic.

IARC declared gasoline exhaust as a "possible carcinogen" in 1988 (and apparently kept at that level in their latest review), with the caveat that the exposure concentrations were limited by the toxicity of carbon monoxide (and as such, limited to about 1/20th the exposure levels of diesel studies).

Other commenters are correct though, all combustion processes produce PAHs and other products of incomplete combustion, but the public perception will continue to be only diesels do.

 

[Jasper J]

Maybe this will lead to a crackdown (or at least more intolerance) to those who like to "roll coal".

 

[82racin]

What doesn't cause cancer these days....

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk 2

 

[unclesfunnyonions]

Meh, until cigarettes are banned, I'm not too worried.

It'll never happen, just like Rupert Murdock and his cronies are "in bed" with our government, so are the tobacco companys. Too much money at stake for them to just shut up shop. Although it is now illegal (or just about to be) to display them in shop over here, they also come with pictures of diseased lungs and tumors on the packs. YUK!

One of the biggest causes of the "greenhouse effect" is methane from cow's, you don't see cat's or DPF's been crammed up a cows arse to solve the problem tho.

Thats because motorists are an easy target, in the public eye cows are natural and "green" and cars are the route of all evil, so people just accept tighter emmisions restrictions and the (sometimes hidden) extra costs that go along with it.

The price of cigarettes, at least over here, is crazy and increasing all the time (im a non smoker). Yes smoking is bad for you, but apparently so is spicy food, red meat, etc. etc.

Lots of folks don't read too deeply and miss what is actually being put forth. They just see "diesel causes cancer", and then decide anything diesel is evil.

And the government knows this and plays on it, get ready for diesels to become the new whipping boy.

I predict drastic changes within two years and a massive tax increase on diesel fuel. All in the name of discouraging it's use, just like with cigarettes.

As i look out of my window, here at work, a good 95% of the cars in the carpark are diesel.

As a keen cyclist i'm all for reduced emmisions, etc. but (our country at least) has an awful tendancy towards knee jerk reactions.

I just hope more research is done before actions are taken.

Alex.

 

[Sappington]

WHO Upgrades Diesel Exhaust to Carcinogen

They used to grade it a "possible" carcinogen. More bad PR for diesels. Would have been nice if they could've added a paragraph about clean-diesel passenger car exhaust. At least the comments address that.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-13/cancer-diesel-exhaust-who/55579410/1

 

[wxman]

Dieselnet's perspective...

...Perhaps due to this vague definition of the carcinogenic agent, the IARC assessment (based itself on research with old technology diesel engines) was unable to perceive health benefits from modern diesel engines, fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel and equipped with emission aftertreatment such as particulate filters. Commenting on the evolution of diesel engine technology, the IARC press release said that “while the amount of particulates and chemicals are reduced with these changes, it is not yet clear how the quantitative and qualitative changes may translate into altered health effects; research into this question is needed.” Indeed, what can be reduced is the amount of pollutant emissions coming out of the tailpipe, such as PM and NOx emissions—the amount of “diesel exhaust” from a diesel engine will always remain unchanged.

During the Q&A period at a media event held after the announcement, a question was asked about modern engine technology in view of the results of the ACES study—referenced by the Diesel Technology Forum in their statement on the IARC decision. The ACES study found few health effects from US 2007 heavy-duty engines. Dr Christopher Portier, Chairman of the IARC Working Group, could not provide any comments on the question....

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2012/06iarc.php

 

[kjclow]

It's being hyped out of proportion. Diesel exhaust has long been associated with increased lung issues in urban populations. As has been mentioned, these reports do not bring up the changes in diesel engines and exhaust treatment. They also do not mention and of the studies that are related to the issues caused by gasoline and gasoline exhaust.

A massive tax on diesel, as suggested by unclefunnyonions, would cripple our socities. We could not use trucks and trains to transport goods from field to table. We could not use aircraft to transport ourselves from one end of the earth to the other. The industrial revolution would quickly grind to a hault and we would be forced to move out of the cities to small farms where we would have to survive on what we grew. Trading would go back to the distance that one could travel by horse before the food spoiled. Remember, no trains equals no coal for the powerplants.

 

[Jasper J]

Warning Label soon to be required on diesel cars and light trucks

 

[kjclow]

They will need to print it slightly smaller so there is room for the prop 65 sticker too. Plus you have to put one on at least the driver's window and probably the dashboard.

 

[jbright]

This is an "non-issue" for newer diesel engines with "clean-diesel" technology. All diesel engines sold in the US since, when, 2009? have this technology. We all know that here. I have friends who are big rig drivers who have DPFs, regens and Ad-Blue they ***** about. This problem is only going grow smaller as the diesel fleet ages and is replaced. More crappy journalism distorting the truth out of either ignorance or motives more sinister.

 

[unclesfunnyonions]

A massive tax on diesel, as suggested by unclefunnyonions, would cripple our socities

Exactly, and force an even bigger push towards hybrid/electric vehicles.

Change takes time, maybe i was hasty (knee jerk? )with my two year prediction. As we all know time and change costs money, that equals increased revenues for governments.

We are also expected to pay for the new technology, as i said above, "the costs that go along with it"

There was a piece on the news two day's ago about a bus company who are starting to use all electric buses.

I only caught the tail end, but i think they were saying they could run for six hours constant and take only 30mins to fully charge.

Here you go. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-18420557

Like it or not, as soon as some of the creases in electric and hydrogen are ironed out, the traditional internal combustion engine for cars/vans/lorries will be gone.

The transition is made easier by vilifiying diesels.

In the UK the govornment is pushing ahead with plans to build 14 (!) new nuclear power stations. This has been met with some aversion.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but, it always strikes me that when people in power want to do things that has public opposition, a few months later news of something connected, in some way, but worse emerges, making the first bad thing seem not as bad.

The Man: "were going to open 14 nuclear power plants"

Joe Public: "Boooo!!!!!"

A couple of months later.

Joe Public: "oh my god, diesel causes cancer"

The Man: "don't worry, build more clean air (nuclear) power stations and drive an electric car and it'll all go away".

Joe Public: "ok, as long as the bad thing stops".

Maybe im delusional, just my point of view tho.

Alex.

 

[Bob_Fout]

This is an "non-issue" for newer diesel engines with "clean-diesel" technology. All diesel engines sold in the US since, when, 2009? have this technology. We all know that here. I have friends who are big rig drivers who have DPFs, regens and Ad-Blue they ***** about. This problem is only going grow smaller as the diesel fleet ages and is replaced. More crappy journalism distorting the truth out of either ignorance or motives more sinister.

Since 2007

 

[kjclow]

There was a piece on the news two day's ago about a bus company who are starting to use all electric buses.

I only caught the tail end, but i think they were saying they could run for six hours constant and take only 30mins to fully charge.

Here you go. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-18420557

Charlotte has looked into electric busses but have not committed. The main arguement against the electric bus here is that it would have to be recharged every other trip in ideal operating condidtions(IIRC). So you would have to have a minimum of two busses for each route. That way one would be charging while the other was in-route. You get to a terminal and everyone has to get off and change busses. The other option would be build in some type of charging grid at the larger multiple bus stops. Charlotte is starting to run more diesel/hybrid busses and a few electric busses at the airport where the distance is shorter and it is easier to swap busses.

 

[tikal]

What doesn't cause cancer these days....

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk 2

Being happier in life

 

[Lug_Nut]

They will need to print it slightly smaller so there is room for the prop 65 sticker too.

So I sit here smugly, in the imagined safety of my biodiesel fuelled, greener-than-thou, Utopia.
non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, sustainable, renewable, low green-house gas, not reportable under CA prop 65.

biodiesel M.S.D.S. here,
http://www.biodiesel.org/docs/ffs-performace_usage/sample-msds.pdf?sfvrsn=4

 

[unclesfunnyonions]

Charlotte has looked into electric busses but have not committed. The main arguement against the electric bus here is that it would have to be recharged every other trip in ideal operating condidtions(IIRC). So you would have to have a minimum of two busses for each route. That way one would be charging while the other was in-route. You get to a terminal and everyone has to get off and change busses. The other option would be build in some type of charging grid at the larger multiple bus stops. Charlotte is starting to run more diesel/hybrid busses and a few electric busses at the airport where the distance is shorter and it is easier to swap busses.

Yeah, the greater distances in the U.S. will make things like that more difficult.

For example, your state North Carolina (right?) is 53,819 square miles in size.

The Whole of England is 50,346 sq/m. Coventy, where they were proposing the electric buses, is only 38 sq/m. Where as Charlotte is 281 sq/m.

Thats almost lab conditions compared to trying out new technology over your end.

Alex.

 

[kjclow]

My boss grew up in Manchester and says that there is a competely diiferent way of looking at your world when you can drive less than 90 minutes in any direction to the ocean.

 

[tikal]

Charlotte has looked into electric busses but have not committed. The main arguement against the electric bus here is that it would have to be recharged every other trip in ideal operating condidtions(IIRC). So you would have to have a minimum of two busses for each route. That way one would be charging while the other was in-route. You get to a terminal and everyone has to get off and change busses. The other option would be build in some type of charging grid at the larger multiple bus stops. Charlotte is starting to run more diesel/hybrid busses and a few electric busses at the airport where the distance is shorter and it is easier to swap busses.

Also we need to have an honest research at the environmental impact of building and disposing of batteries for our transportation needs. In my view they make more overall sense (economics + environment) in a hybrid/diesel system for mass transit and not for private cars. The folks at Argonne National Lab are doing some of this research and trade offs: http://greet.es.anl.gov/