WHO's cancer agency: Diesel fumes cause cancer
Source: Associated Press
Diesel fumes cause cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer agency declared Tuesday, a ruling it said could make exhaust as important a public health threat as secondhand smoke.
The risk of getting cancer from diesel fumes is small, but since so many people breathe in the fumes in some way, the science panel said raising the status of diesel exhaust to carcinogen from "probable carcinogen" was an important shift.
"It's on the same order of magnitude as passive smoking," said Kurt Straif, director of the IARC department that evaluates cancer risks. "This could be another big push for countries to clean up exhaust from diesel engines."
Since so many people are exposed to exhaust, Straif said there could be many cases of lung cancer connected to the contaminant. He said the fumes affected groups including pedestrians on the street, ship passengers and crew, railroad workers, truck drivers, mechanics, miners and people operating heavy machinery.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/whos-cancer-agency-diesel-fumes-cause-cancer-160516338--finance.html
tawadi
(2,110 posts)They didn't know this?
patrice
(47,992 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)OSHA Safety Hazard Information Bulletin
on Potential Carcinogenicity of Diesel Exhaust
http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19881130.html
mike dub
(541 posts)I wonder if third-world big city dwellers are at higher risk. I've been to Guatemala and Uganda, and it always seemed to me that the smog and diesel haze in cities like Guatemala (City) and Kampala was way worse and stinkier/more noxious than new Volkswagen TDI exhaust in the suburban U.S. ... modern American Caterpillar-powered semi-truck engine exhaust even smells cleaner. Those new VW TDI's barely stink. Wonder if cancer risk is less with our newer 'lower emissions' diesels.
That said, I work my rural North Carolina acreage with a newer Kubota diesel tractor (tier-3 rating?), and I breath in some of its fumes for about 50 hours a year. The payoff is Diesel just gets more work done than gas, though (whether it be higher mileage in a TDI vs gas car engine, or more work done on the farm) It is what it is, I guess.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Yes we've lots of diesel autos but with highly efficient engines fitted with DPFs.
See also : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=17250 Already Europe locks out most US cars other than where US manufacturers produce suitable engines in their European factories.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Diesel light trucks are just a small portion here, and even those are being made with DPFs now.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)I was under the impreesion there was no market there for diesel cars.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)The VW Passat and Jetta TDI are the most popular. Audi and BMW have offered a few diesel models available from time to time. The only domestic manufacturer I can think of is Jeep, if you can call what they make a car, but even they don't make diesel engines domestically anymore. And actually the reason why there aren't more diesels in the US is because it's more difficult and expensive to meet passenger car emission standards here because each state can have it's own. VW had to suspend the importation of diesels for a couple of years when we changed our standards until they could start manufacturing models that met those standards. They were still selling them in Europe. Diesel is also more expensive now that clean fuel requirements have changed.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Do you mind I drive a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited 2.8 CRD here in the UK.
Diesel has been more expensive than petrol here for the past 10 years or so.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)I'm just saying the requirements for passenger cars and trucks/SUVs are different. I suspect all Jeeps fall under the SUV requirements, but I'm not sure about that.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)SUVs etc are treated the same as cars. I'm aware that the US has that tragic exemption to wriggle around various factors related to cars.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)years. I often wonder if it might eventually kill me.
I have lost 3 cats to thoracic cancer in the past 4 years, the ONLY cats of mine to ever get cancer of any kind. They had no other identifiable risk factors.
One more reason to be glad our city buses went to natural gas 15 years ago......
2on2u
(1,843 posts)harbor terrorists/militants/people fighting on the wrong side/labor organizers/disgruntled taxi drivers and or non citizen voters.
rhiannon55
(2,672 posts)My dad died from lymphoma in 1994. My non-smoker mom is now dying from her second round of lung cancer. We always wondered about the fumes at that station.
yardwork
(61,821 posts)I'm not defending cigarette smoke - it causes cancer, no question. I just think that sometimes smoking was blamed as a convenient way to shift the blame to the person with cancer rather than recognizing all the other carcinogens in the environment. When nearly 100% of the adult population smoked, it was pretty easy to blame smoking for their cancer. Maybe it was some other exposure instead.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)1947 diesel exhaust had vastly more particulates compared with ULSD and Catalytic Converter diesel tech. Although the implementation of such tech has been limited to the developed west.