Nanparticles in diesel emission cause heart disease

[pogo]

I'm kind of surprised at the reception that threads like this receive from moderators. I would have posted this to the Oxford_Guy thread of the same title but its locked down.

We're a large group of people that own diesels. Wouldn't seeing and evaluating research like this be in our own interest, more so than someone that owns a gasser? We're certainly critical and open when it comes to analyzing other aspects of our cars, like serviceability, maintainability, warranty policies, etc. Why not the health aspects of diesel emissions? And wouldn't this discussion area be the place to do that?

If some of us think this type of article is funded by an anti-diesel lobby backed by gaoline engine car companies (if there is such a thing), we should be able to refute it by scouring the internet for independent research, even coming up with ways to measure the emissions in our own cars.

There certainly does appear to be a strong "pro-diesel" lobby in our government, and it must be well funded to produce summaries like the following:

http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions.html



It seems indisputable that nano particle emissions have negative health impacts, that smaller particles are worse than larger, and that newer engines tend to produce smaller particles.

What I haven't been able to get a handle on is how effective our emission control systems are, how our emissions actually compare to gas cars, and how our emissions compare to the emissions that have been found to have health impacts.

The document above is openly slanted and only presents data that shows diesel in a favorable light, so I'm going to try to plod through this and see if I can get access to the source papers in whole, and judge the results myself.

I think it would be a great service to TDI owners to see this discussion group filled with (unbiased) references to data measuring our TDI emissions, and medical research describing the health impacts of different types of nano particle emissions.

 

[oilhammer]

Walking outside can cause something bad to happen. So can cow farts. As it turns out, the biggest guarantee you'll get sick and die is being alive in the first place. The death rate is 100%: 1 death per person, 100% guaranteed for everyone. Not worth spending your living years worrying about this type of stuff constantly, too many productive things to do.

 

[schwarze Käfer]

Walking outside can cause something bad to happen. So can cow farts. As it turns out, the biggest guarantee you'll get sick and die is being alive in the first place. The death rate is 100%: 1 death per person, 100% guaranteed for everyone. Not worth spending your living years worrying about this type of stuff constantly, too many productive things to do.

Amen!

 

[Doc_Oc]

When your wife and kids have to worry and take care of you sorry, cancer sick bottom, you will change your point of view in a second. Or worst yet, your loved ones get sick from it.
I'm not saying go sell you car. And I agree with "go enjoy yourself and do something productive" attitude, but there is some true to this.
I volunteer as a firefighter and one of the training courses part of "health and safety" was on diesel exhaust (part of all the job related cancers). They linked diesel exhaust to brain tumors and it is actually recognized as one of the few job related cancers covered under the provincial and federal legislation.

 

[Jim W]

Are you from the land of Fruits and Nuts (california) also?
Do me a favor move inside a bubble and you will never have to worry about anything than.
You do know that I did drink water from a garden hose growing up and when my chewing gum fill on the floor, I washed it off and continue to chew it. Oh I still do drink water from a garden hose when I am cutting the grass in the summer with my 10 year old GAS powered Lawn mower.
Jim W.

 

[oilhammer]

I spent much of the weekend working outside, atop a diesel tractor... stepped in some cow poo, too. All after eating bacon and farm-fresh home grown eggs for breakfast. If I have to die, I'm gonna enjoy the trip!

 

[hevster1]

" I'm the one who's got to die when it's time to die. So let me live my life like I want to."

Jimi Hendrix

 

[Doc_Oc]

Man, I don't want to sound like a dick, but all I hear is "I...I ...I" nothing about kids and grand kids and people that care about you.
Whatever, to each their own!

 

[RabbitGTI]

Man, I don't want to sound like a dick, but all I hear is "I...I ...I" nothing about kids and grand kids and people that care about you.
Whatever, to each their own!

Your point about job related cancers is an occupational risk. Sure, if I spend 35 years in a bus barn, diesel might **** me up big time. Just getting a whiff of diesel now and then won't do anything unless you are almost dead anyway from lung disease or some other problem. The diesel is just part of the blend of pollution we are exposed to which includes woodsmoke, solvents, brake dust, power plant emissions, ash, radioactive elements, particles from gas vehicles, pesticides, heavy metals, etc...etc... Conditions are not perfect, but compared to when I was a kid, the air is pure. I remember days that the air was yellow and pre-catalytic converter and fuel injection the gas smell during traffic jams was enough to make you puke.

 

[GoFaster]

Problem here is that much of this research involves exhaust characteristics from older generation vehicles.

There are orders of magnitude difference in the amount of PM emitted from a diesel engine with a DPF than without one. It's to the extent that there is less PM from a diesel engine with a DPF than there is from a spark-ignition engine.

What happened in the past, is in the past. Things that we do now can only affect the future. Therefore, studies like this ought to be focusing on emission characteristics from CURRENT vehicles with CURRENT emission control technology. If they do that, firstly they are likely to find that the emission characteristics from a DPF-equipped diesel are lower than those of a spark-ignition engine, and secondly, that the regulated emissions from both are so low as to practically approach zero compared to how things have been in the past.

At a minimum these studies ought to be clarifying in black and white that the research is applied to vehicles with a given (and obsolete) level of emission control technology.

 

[Doc_Oc]

I am asking this, as I don't know it. Do trucks (18 wheeler) have to follow the same strict regulations?

 

[MethylEster]

To put this into perspective what you really need to do is make a comparison to the air quality inside the average American home.

 

[wxman]

...There certainly does appear to be a strong "pro-diesel" lobby in our government, and it must be well funded to produce summaries like the following:

http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions.html

This is a collection of references I've run across the past 12 years or so that I put together at the behest of a few members on this message board several years ago. And just to be clear, I was NOT funded one penny by the government for this web page, and ALL of the time I spent on it was my OWN time; I did not spend one second of government time creating or updating the web page(s)!

Have not had enough free time to keep the webpage adequately up-to-date, and some of the links provided may no longer work. However, I've tried to provide only legitimate sources (peer-reviewed where possible).

...The document above is openly slanted and only presents data that shows diesel in a favorable light, so I'm going to try to plod through this and see if I can get access to the source papers in whole, and judge the results myself.

I freely admit this is presented with a pro-diesel bias. My original intent was to provide a counter-measure to the anti-diesel environmental lobby which I perceived as giving only one side of the story.

 

[jbright]

I am asking this, as I don't know it. Do trucks (18 wheeler) have to follow the same strict regulations?

I was just unloading a big delivery truck from one of our distributors and the driver left the engine running. You could tell from the sound it was a diesel, but there was no smell, nothing, only steam.

 

[nicklockard]

Problem here is that much of this research involves exhaust characteristics from older generation vehicles.

There are orders of magnitude difference in the amount of PM emitted from a diesel engine with a DPF than without one. It's to the extent that there is less PM from a diesel engine with a DPF than there is from a spark-ignition engine.

What happened in the past, is in the past. Things that we do now can only affect the future. Therefore, studies like this ought to be focusing on emission characteristics from CURRENT vehicles with CURRENT emission control technology. If they do that, firstly they are likely to find that the emission characteristics from a DPF-equipped diesel are lower than those of a spark-ignition engine, and secondly, that the regulated emissions from both are so low as to practically approach zero compared to how things have been in the past.

At a minimum these studies ought to be clarifying in black and white that the research is applied to vehicles with a given (and obsolete) level of emission control technology.

Haven't read the paper, but if they studied today's actual fleet distribution of diesel vehicles, which naturally includes mostly 1-2-3 generations past, then it is perfectly valid analysis. You know as well as anyone that today's DPF equipped B2T5 compliant vehicles won't dominate (plurality) the market fleet for another, what... 8 or 12 years?

Then we can talk about how perfect diesel exhaust is. We don't need to be Cassandra's here, neither do we need to be Pollyanna's. Eyes wide open. Look at the world the way it actually is, IMO.

And to answer Doc Oc: no, 18-wheeler's emissions regulations are much less tight than automotive, but orders of magnitude better than even the early 90's. The government(s) DO very clearly have an obvious bias againt diesel in automotive uses. Trucks drive through a hole that you can...well...drive a Mack truck through.

For the life of my, I can't understand why some 18 year old pimply dumbass can spew massive clouds of black coal dust in his hopped up, jacked up, chromed-up, F-350 dually to impress his retarded friends, but a commuter car is heavily punished...even in California! What the heck logic can the government use to defend that??!

 

[Drivbiwire]

I am asking this, as I don't know it. Do trucks (18 wheeler) have to follow the same strict regulations?

All have to have DPF + SCR aka "Clean Diesel Technology" just like your 2012 Passat, E/M/GL/R-350 MB Bluetec or BMW X5D.

Certain emissions may be slightly higher but the technology is installed and required to be used.

Nano-Particles aren't so much an issue for DPF equipped diesels as they are for Gasoline and Natural gas vehicles.

I know car makers are scrambling to install GPF systems (Gasoline Particulate Filter) before the cat gets out of the bag that gasoline engine emissions are more hazardous than current diesel emissions.

 

[GoFaster]

If you are worried about the minuscule amount of PM from modern, compliant engines, you should worry more about PM from the tires. Oh yes, and from forest fires, and it's pretty darn tough to put a particulate-filter on those. Hurry, hurry, the sky is falling...

 

[GoFaster]

Haven't read the paper, but if they studied today's actual fleet distribution of diesel vehicles, which naturally includes mostly 1-2-3 generations past, then it is perfectly valid analysis. You know as well as anyone that today's DPF equipped B2T5 compliant vehicles won't dominate (plurality) the market fleet for another, what... 8 or 12 years?

While this is true, the papers never put much emphasis on the FACT that as older vehicles age and are retired and new ones are put in service, there is a natural replacement of the older high-polluting vehicles which are responsible for much of the airborne contaminants. Whatever problems they are attributing to "diesel exhaust" will naturally go away over time. But in the meantime, the report makes a blanket categorization of "diesel exhaust" when in fact this is not entirely true. These papers seem to never mention that it is by far predominantly the pre-DPF and pre-catalyst vehicles that are responsible for whatever it is that they are studying and that the new (2007-onward) vehicles are essentially not a factor any more.

 

[GoFaster]

For the life of my, I can't understand why some 18 year old pimply dumbass can spew massive clouds of black coal dust in his hopped up, jacked up, chromed-up, F-350 dually to impress his retarded friends, but a commuter car is heavily punished...even in California! What the heck logic can the government use to defend that??!

This is an enforcement issue. The federal government can only regulate what NEW vehicles do. Once they are in the hands of consumers, it's up to local (state/province) jurisdictions for periodic emission testing programs, and local police departments concerning whether to ticket someone like that for tampering with emission controls.

Enforcement after-the-fact has its own set of issues.

 

[Softrockrenegade]

HPFP , Iced IC and now CANCER !!!!! Man really need to get rid of this car otherwise I'll be stranded , broke and dead !!!

 

[pogo]

FTR: I'm not concerned about myself, but about my 2 1/2 year old daughter and son who's due in June. In fact I happily sit on a diesel bus for 3 hours a day, commuting in and out of NYC through NJ, so that my daughter can live in the relatively clean air if the hills in Northern NJ. My nephews live in Queens NY, and already show problems with with allergies, asthma and breathing.

Will whether or not I drive a diesel change the world? Maybe. Deciding how I spend the $30K a new car costs is at least as powerful a lever as a popular vote. I bought a diesel in 2002, in order to signal to the auto industry that people were willing to pay more for a more efficient vehicle.

wxman: that summary is amazing work. If it were any entry in a debate, it would win. But its completely, totally, pro-diesel and not objective.

I don't feel powerless, I'm not afraid of the truth.

 

[nicklockard]

Pogo, I disagree that wxman's summary is not objective. He strictly used objective, mostly peer-reviewed evidence and studies. Whatever bias is there is a bias of omission, but IMO, there's nothing there that is subjective. IOW: he treats the topics objectively, but the choice of topics is of course subjective: elsewise it would have to be book length!

 

[GoFaster]

If you are considering buying a 2007-or-later diesel engine, do not even concern yourself with the exhaust emissions at all. They are so close to nil that they can barely be measured and are far less than the fleet-average or older vehicles in the original study.

By the way, running your engine in a closed garage is still not a good idea, but not because of CO any more. The engine uses up the oxygen and replaces it with carbon dioxide. Animal life cannot survive in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere.

 

[pogo]

wxman's summary is a pro diesel argument based on 12 year old data. Useful in a court of law, or in a debate, sure. But perhaps not as useful to someone only trying to evaluate how the recent papers on the health effects of nano-particulates relate to the emissions produced by our cars, and alternatives, for that matter.

I believe the particulate sizes cited in recent health reports are on the order of 25 nm. That's 100 times smaller that the "2.5 um" lower limit that was referred to as "ultra-fine" particulates 15 or 25 years ago.

There are older papers comparing VW and Peugeot DPF eimissions with gasoline emissions that state diesel engines with DPF produce exhaust that's cleaner that the intake air. Is that true for these much smaller particle sizes? I don't know.

I can research this stuff on my own, and keep my results to myself, but its clear there are other members in tdiclub that are more capable, and could provide valuable data and feedback. Oh well.

 

[pogo]

There may actually be quite a bit of relevant data in wxman's summary. Certainly data about smaller particle size. I guess I started the topic off a bit contentiously. My fault. Apologies.

 

[wxman]

I just don't want anyone to get the idea that there was any government funding involved with my web site, or even any government time spent on it. I can get in trouble for that!

 

[hevster1]

Pogo,
Being that you are from NJ, same as me, I will give you a little insight into emissions here in the garden state. Much of our smog comes from industry, coal burning and auto truck usage especially on I-80 which passes within close proximity of both our homes. You also have industry in Rockland and Orange County NY and NYC.

According to the state, it is far more expensive to clean up emissions from industry than it is to clean up cars. Also, what they do not tell you is there are a ton of payoffs for officials willing to look the other way. Then there are job issues to think about as well.

Coal emissions cone from several coal burning plants in PA. One of them is located within 8 miles of my home in Warren County. They do pollute heavily.

Auto and truck emissions in NJ are a fact. One of the main reasons is that our state is overpopulated and 80 is clogged with cars constantly. I am sure you are aware of this being from Denville.

Nothing, not a hybrid or clean diesel or whatever doesn't add to the air pollution levels. The air here is unhealthy and will be until we can figure out a way to stop polluting. The coal plants should be regulated or replaced but then as we all know the costs will be passed to the consumer. More people should use mass transit where possible. However some just cannot because no lines run there or it would take 4 hours each way to get to work. Sometimes you just cannot get a job that close to home.
There are no good answers or solutions. All you can try to do is not add to the problem.

 

[nicklockard]

The Burger King on my way to work on Nimbus and Scholl's Ferry Road spews more unregulated particles, CO during the day than all the cars that pass by it in a 24 hour period.

Tell me why we are chasing after miniscule improvements in automobiles and ignoring the elephants in the room?

 

[GoFaster]

Anyone really concerned about PM ought to never use a barbecue, either.

 

[oilhammer]

Anyone really concerned about PM ought to never use a barbecue, either.

Or hang around me after Taco Bell. The FM (farticle matter) count is several hundred parts per million in the room on those nights... yikes...