The black stuff belching out probably does....but everyone seems to want to bitch about dpfs and adblue?

 

whatever you breathe or eat causes cancer one way or another. I am sure the exhaust fumes of our dpf-ad blue cleaned touaregs are healthier than the air in LA, Mexico City or anywhere in any chinese city...

 

In most of the modern diesel engines.... the air coming out of the pipe is cleaner than the air going into the engine.

I'm calling bullshit (sorry for the cuss word if you're a politician in a certain Massachussetts town).

 

believe it or not the newest Gasoline direct injection engines put out more NoX and particulate than current Clean diesel engines. In fact they're so dirty it wont be long before gasoline engines will be required to have a particulate filter fitted very similar to the clean diesels of today.

Did you know carrots can kill you?

 

That's what I'm saying, new diesels are clean but everyone seems to want to complain about or somehow eliminate DPFs and adblue because "they can pollute as much as they want to" or whatever their reasoning is.

All I can say is when I started my V10 without the garage doors open you'd stink up the garage and 1/2 the house...the V6 TDI with adblue has a bit of an amonia smell and thats it. smells like you used windex to clean something.

 

The news folks LOVE the splash of headlines like this. " ***** causes cancer" etc. What they don't say, because the news guys don't have the training to ask, is 'just because we can now DETECT a substance down to the part-per-billion level, and that substance might, under some laboratory conditions and at very much higher concentrations, apparently cause SOME cancers in laboratory animals, does that mean that same substance, in the environment EVER cause humans any real problems worth noting?' The answer, of course is 'we don't know enough about it yet'.
The world is full of scientists issuing press releases like this. The incentive in them doing that is to get research and grant money so they can study the 'problem' more fully etc, etc. Lots of PHDs result from those funds so this kind of 'scientific' baloney isn't going to stop very soon. But it is still baloney! It is also a form of manipulation of the press.

 

Truck drivers should be more worried about this:

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1089706

than cancer.

Good article, though. Thanks for sharing.

 

Oh, make no mistake, the news guys do have appropriate training alright. They tell us exactly what they are paid for and what fits well within the current political agenda.

 

If you love the smell of diesel, you at least die happy.

 

I like the smell of 2 stroke exhaust

 

Half the vehicles in Europe are diesel powered. People should be dropping like flies if that were the case

 

We're all going to die of something. Who cares?

 

What do we all thinks happen when the furnace of most homes in New England crank up ? DIESEL EQUALS HOME HEATING OIL BASICALLY. Turn off all the furnaces or we'll all die. Pretty funny, some stories are an joke. JP

 

Here's the deal: life is 100% fatal. There's no other way out; its toes first or bust.
Does anyone know if the execs at the WHO are still flying to meetings in private jets which burn kero (diesel)? Seems a lot of people in the environmental left live by "do what I say, not as I do".

 

More environmental scaremongering. What about us poor sods when we were kids who once lived in houses with lead paint? Or, gasoline that contained TEL (lead). This stuff not toxic? How about all the soot from chimneys in domestic use? Countless millions of them chugging out particulate matter. WARNING - breathing is a health hazard. Period! WARNING - you will die from death!

Do you know how many people die from eating too much sugar? And we though fat consumption was the problem.

 

... What about us poor sods when we were kids who once lived in houses with lead paint?...

Wasn't this only a problem if your kids were chewing on the word work? You actually had to INGEST the paint for it to be bad.

We actually tried as parents to keep our kids from chewing on the wood work and walls. I suppose that they could have grabbed a bite or two while we were not looking...

 

I don't know about the rest of the world but in the UK drinking water was often delivered in lead pipes!

 

The dumb thing about environmental laws, is they are not retrospective. What about those old smoke belching clangers roaming the road? Or worse, those dirty old (as in OLD) diesel engines that belch their guts in big black clouds of trailing smoke? Funny about that. Not funny at all really if you are stuck behind one of them!

Link from post #1 similar to the one here is Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-13/diesel-fumes-carcinogenic/4068414

Breathing, for many in high density populated areas is unhealthy; it's just not diesel that will do the damage as in this extract:

"Research into this question is needed," it said. "In addition, existing fuels and vehicles without these modifications will take many years to be replaced, particularly in less developed countries, where regulatory measures are currently also less stringent."
IARC said gasoline exhaust fumes should be classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans", a finding that was unchanged from its previous assessment in 1989.

 

A couple of guys at work were diagnosed with form of Leukaemia the last 6 months, all over age 60, and working here for over 25 years. Doctors in both cases blame it on the diesel fumes from the trucks they drive, and other trucks in the morning when pulling out of the station.

Has to be noted, many of these Chemicals, fumes, don't rear their ugly heads over night. It can take years, and to illustrate the example even better, when exposed to moderate radiation, many of the side effects can be seen 6 years later for Leukaemia and up to 15-20 years later for breast cancer, prostate, etc.

People have a bad and ignorant habit, almost arrogant, of brushing everything off with the we are going to all die anyways excuse. Nobody repeats that when in their death bed suffering though. People who are guilty of this are now better than the idiotic governments. Sorry if I'm insulting anyone but that is the straight truth.

Not saying the government is correct, they are hypocritical most of the time.
With adblu, new filters, etc, I'm not worried about todays diesel emissions at all. As far as yesterday goes, I'm afraid the stats may speak for themselves.

'dude out.

 

I picked up the following from DieselNet: Diesel Emissions Online. I copied the article in its entirety. The italics at the end are my comments about the article.

From DieselNet

Posted on: 12 June 2012

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), today classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1). After a week-long meeting, the group of international experts agreed that there was “sufficient evidence” that diesel exhaust exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer.

In 1988, IARC classified diesel exhaust as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). An IARC Advisory Group which reviews and recommends future priorities had recommended diesel exhaust as a high priority for re-evaluation since 1998.

The cancer-causing potential of diesel exhaust has been indicated by a number of studies, particularly those that examined workers exposed to diesel exhaust, as occupational exposure levels tend to be significantly higher than exposures in environmental settings. The IARC decision has been apparently prompted by the recently published results of the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS)—a large US National Cancer Institute/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study of occupational exposure to diesel emissions in underground miners, which showed an increased risk of death from lung cancer in exposed workers. The study monitored over 12,000 miners with diesel exposure from the time when the mine company first introduced diesel equipment (between 1947 and 1967) until the end of the study in 1997.

The scientific evidence was reviewed by the IARC Working Group who found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer (sufficient evidence) and also noted a positive association (limited evidence) with an increased risk of bladder cancer (Group 1). The Working Group also concluded that gasoline exhaust was possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a finding unchanged from the previous evaluation in 1989.

While the epidemiological and toxicological research reviewed by the Working Group found a link between cancer and certain components of diesel exhaust—in the particulate and/or gas phase—the IARC has not identified which diesel emissions may cause cancer and classified the entire “diesel exhaust” as carcinogenic. This weakens the value of the IARC assessment as a guidance for governments and other decision makers in their development of environmental standards. After all, diesel exhaust is not a well-defined substance. It consists primarily of nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor, with the actual pollutant emissions that are responsible for health effects being highly variable among different engine technologies.

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.

The IARC assessment carries more value for countries where diesel emissions remain unregulated. Dr Christopher Wild, Director, IARC, said that “today’s conclusion sends a strong signal that public health action is warranted. This emphasis is needed globally, including among the more vulnerable populations in developing countries where new technology and protective measures may otherwise take many years to be adopted.”

The summary of the evaluation will appear in The Lancet Oncology as an online publication ahead of print on June 15, 2012.

Source: IARC

Note: the study cited involved diesel technology, in an underground (concentrated) air environment. The exposure data ended in 1967 and the diesel technology involved is obviously several years earlier than that. No data is provided just how MUCH the risk is increased and the various components of the exhaust are not identified nor are the concentrations (sensitivity factors) presented or known. Therefore, nothing is shown to support an argument that reduction of PM, NOx, aldehydes or ANY OTHER exhaust component will make the situation better! As the article points out, individual components of the exhaust may be reduced, but the volume of ‘diesel exhaust’ itself remains the same. Thus - if for example, the PM concentrations are reduced by 75%, it is unknown if any beneficial reduction of cancer will occur at all much less what the risk was before due to particulates. No cost-benefit analysis can be made at all without this information.

Clearly, eliminating all diesel exhaust completely eliminates this risk factor; it also eliminates any benefit to society the mines generate, including jobs, energy, steel produced and all the related downstream effects that are so imbedded in our lives.

 

Yes, buring fossil fuel has byproduct. Volcanic eruptions? How much toxin is spewed into the atmosphere? How about BPA from bottled water and endocrine effects (plastic water bottle exposure to heat is a no-no)?

Drinking Water from Plastic Bottles Increases Toxic BPA Levels - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

I'm happy to drive a diesel! It's the world we live in and we'll all have to breathe in some crap that may not agree with us. Reduce the population is the only way we will EVER save the planet. In the meantime, oil will be drilled for, pumped, shipped, refined and burnt

 

Apparently all the fish humans now eat is contaminated, as plastic pollutants in the oceans are on the rise and being ingested by things living in the food chain in succession right to the top-us.
Perhaps no driving diesels or eating anything from the ocean

 

I believe it's also a well known fact that Gasoline/gasoline exhaust contains several carcinogens . Diesel may have a higher concentration of toxins per gallon of burned fuel but we're also burning less gallons per mile than with a comparable gasoline engine. I saw a chart where they compared the toxins per mile in a TDI passat to a gasoline Passat and the TDI came out quite far ahead in being cleaner. I still believe the choice of going with a clean diesel is less harmfull OVER ALL, mile for mile than a gasoline vehicle.

 

I think that "clean diesel" will swing the pendulum, perhaps they need to reanalyze in a couple of years. I mean, you can stick a white T-Shirt on the rear exhaust pipe of a 2012 Golf TDI as an example, rev her up for a few seconds with the T-Shirt on the tail pipe, and one will see a white T-Shirt when raised into the light!

That said, MOST of the trains, trucks, any big machinery for that matter, even ships, etc, are not "clean diesel" new technology yet.

 

That said, MOST of the trains, trucks, any big machinery for that matter, even ships, etc, are not "clean diesel" new technology yet.

FWIW all heavy trucks and construction machinery made since 08 run some combination of DPFs, Catalysts and DEF, so they actually are clean diesels.

 

Dead right VWDude. All the greenies and radical enviro groups would ban farting if they had their way! There is no solution to vehicle emissions other than globally ban every single vehicle that is older than say, 10 years. Not going to happen is it. How about all those 2-stroke bikes, trikes and decrept outboards in India and Asia and the rest of the 3rd world etc? Not happening being clean, let alone all the wood combustion fires for cooking and heating worldwide. Drive your oiler Treg VWDude, fill it up and be happy with a clean conscience. It's what I do. Otherwise, cull the population (ie, reduce consumerism), shoot all the cows - no more methane and let the extreme earthy radicals have their way. Amen!

 

FWIW all heavy trucks and construction machinery made since 08 run some combination of DPFs, Catalysts and DEF, so they actually are clean diesels.

Yes, I just re read my quote, it's good you cleared that one. I meant to say that present day fleets used by the big companies to transport all of our goods, still have not been updated with 08+ models, as this is very expensive, especially with projections for the western economy in the next couple of years. There is no law to force companies like UPS, FedEx, CN railways, etc, to renew their fleets, hence why you still see many late 90's to early 2000's diesel's still running out there, even by all these big boys.

 

US on-highway is few steps ahead of off-highway emissions.

2013 comes next emission level that requires urea system, here in States known as DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) on all 175 hp and higher diesel engines used on off-highway machines (excavators, bulldosers whatever construction equipment)

So about 3 years behind on-highway as 2010 we did similar update to our on-highway machines and now we are wrapping up the 2013 for off-highway machines.