[The Age] Diesel exhaust causes lung cancer: WHO report - Page 2

**GasoLane** · 13-06-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Well its obviously not good for you, can't deny that.

What. Cancer or breathing ?

Franco Cozzo · 13-06-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

What. Cancer or breathing ?

Life in general I reckon

Ben73 · 13-06-2012, 07:33 PM

Nothing much causes cancer these days.
Here is a list from the daily mail of things that cause cancer. I don't think this list has been updated lately. Im sure it would of doubled in size by now.

Quote:

JG34JA · 13-06-2012, 07:35 PM

Was going to link this news...
IIRC something to do with the particulates blowing holes in the lungs. Truckies may not get it, but folks that live near major truck transport routes will have increased exposure.
If standing around the back of a diesel ute while it's on (stop start work), exposure may increase.
And so EcoBoost and LPi Fords looking even better... LPi especially, less Carbons in the chain = cleaner running = cleaner burn.

**ebxr8240** · 13-06-2012, 07:57 PM

It's only dangerous if you inhale...

mik · 13-06-2012, 08:41 PM

it must be a slow news day.

Neale · 13-06-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben73

Nothing much causes cancer these days.
Here is a list from the daily mail of things that cause cancer. I don't think this list has been updated lately. Im sure it would of doubled in size by now.

thats gold

looks like they have their bases covered there with cancer causes. By the look of it the only thing they have missed is reading the daily mail causing cancer

graham7773 · 13-06-2012, 09:51 PM

pottery beige "cancer causes cancer". As funny as that might sound, it is true. Cancer causes cancer by metastasis. Cheers

gtfpv · 13-06-2012, 09:51 PM

BRING BACK STEAM ENGINES !!!! ohh wait ! CARBON TAX.

greenfoam · 13-06-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildrider

they dont know what causes cancer!!

Everyone knows what causes cancer, damaged DNA causes cancer. At least that's the root case of it. Then you have millions of substances that cause DNA damage, all the way from just about every cooked food you put in your mouth to yep Diesel fumes

graham7773 · 13-06-2012, 10:13 PM

I agree with gtfpv. BRING BACK STEAM ENGINES. Most of their exhaust is water vapor, believe it or not. And carbon tax is going to hit, (hurt) everybody. You simply cannot dodge it.
I just did a little Googling on this. Scary! A diesel loco that uses 12000 liters of fuel puts out 32000kg of CO2 or 32 tonnes. In one 24 hour period of work hauling coal trains. Multiply that by 4 as the coal trains that run past my front door have 4 diesel locos each. 128 tonnes of carbon per night per train and they run about every 20 minutes.

chamb0 · 13-06-2012, 10:58 PM

In response to some comments here, rather than the OP, I was reminded of an article I read in New Scientist a few months ago (ABC version here since I can't find it now)...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-2...cancer/3856210

It seems sometimes we can easily lose proper perspective on the primary 4 causes of cancer described in the scientific literature - smoking, obesity, sun exposure, too much alcohol. The reality is that cutting back on these things will dramatically decrease your chances of getting this stupid disease, whereas increasing your intake of Daily Mail and Herald Sun tabloid pop-news will adversely impact upon your brain function.

Interesting comment in there also about the media providing us with a confusing array of messages in response to our want for every last detail, and our subsequent confusion between things that contain small traces of carcinogens and those that are actually recognised to be cancer-causing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABC News

There are concerns that anxiety about what might cause cancer could be diverting attention from proven anti-cancer strategies.

Smoking, drinking too much alcohol, obesity and sun exposure are the big four proven causes of cancer.

Cancer researcher Professor Bernard Stewart, who specialises in public health, says anxiety about chemicals in food and consumer products is unfounded and potentially distracting.

He gives the example of people who worry about cancer being caused by car interiors, minute quantities of carcinogens in food, or certain cosmetic contaminants.

"Fears of these things can, it seems, overwhelm consciousness of cancer causation and cancer prevention methodologies that involve basic changes in behaviour rather than avoiding dangerous carcinogens," he said.

"There is evidence published in reputable journals in which it's apparent that people who are aware of lots of causes of cancer tend to be less likely to do the things that some of us may have thought were absolutely obvious, like stopping smoking."

Audio: Professor Bernard Stewart talks to AM (AM)

Professor Stewart says confusion can stop people from taking measures that do prevent cancer, such as quitting smoking, cutting back on alcohol, getting into shape and avoiding sunburn.

"The idea of someone saying 'I'm not giving up smoking but I'm going to make sure we eat organic food from now on' - without in any way being disparaging of people who want to absolutely minimise their intake of pesticides, that option is not known to prevent a burden of cancer, whereas stopping smoking certainly does prevent a burden of cancer.

"So if our criteria is actually preventing cancer then we can forget about many of these reports that involve very low levels of exposure."

He says modern society fears cancer above any other disease.

"The media can't be blamed for delivering to the community what the community wants, namely information about every last possible cause of cancer," he said.

"But detection of low levels of carcinogens in any context doesn't necessarily mean that in that context they actually cause cancer.

"So whereas we get reporting of possible cancer risks, the actual known causes and the proven preventive measures tend to take a back seat because it's old news."

Professor Stewart has published his concerns in the Lancet Oncology magazine.

FG50T · 13-06-2012, 11:31 PM

Reading causes cancer.

BHDOGS · 14-06-2012, 02:54 AM

So people cant smoke in a bar coz its bad but diesel fumes breath it all down what a crock of ****

burnz · 14-06-2012, 05:10 AM

i heard russel crowe can beat cancer from you.

csv8 · 14-06-2012, 08:21 AM

Genetics is a major factor in cancer

ltd_on20s · 14-06-2012, 12:43 PM

snap! were pretty serious when they spoke about cancer....

i heard chuck norris' tears can kill cancer.

too bad he doesn't cry.

Falcman0o7 · 14-06-2012, 02:52 PM

Right.....

Just being alive and your at risk of cancer....cotton wool anyone?

Falcman0o7 · 14-06-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

snap! were pretty serious when they spoke about cancer....

i heard chuck norris' tears can kill cancer.

too bad he doesn't cry.

LOL! Good ol chuck

joolz · 14-06-2012, 04:24 PM

I hope Gillard doesnt read this. She will tax diesel like smokes and the bowsers will be in a drab olive green!!

Ben73 · 14-06-2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham7773

I agree with gtfpv. BRING BACK STEAM ENGINES. Most of their exhaust is water vapor, believe it or not. And carbon tax is going to hit, (hurt) everybody. You simply cannot dodge it.
I just did a little Googling on this. Scary! A diesel loco that uses 12000 liters of fuel puts out 32000kg of CO2 or 32 tonnes. In one 24 hour period of work hauling coal trains. Multiply that by 4 as the coal trains that run past my front door have 4 diesel locos each. 128 tonnes of carbon per night per train and they run about every 20 minutes.

Where are these trains located? Are they very long trains? Or do they travel long distance. 48,000L per day per train seams very excessive.

At work we have 8000 Litre tanks, each train has 2 locos which means 16,000L. They need to be filled every 2-3 days depending whether its a local or long haul job.
I did quick calculation at work and I came to the conclusion a loaded coal train with 2 locomotives will use about 2,000 L/100kms according to the display screen in the cab. But It is not very accurate. The other day I saw the screen displaying 500L in the tank. Few minutes later it was showing 1100L
It must of found 600L of diesel hidden in a little nook somewhere.

But the train weights 9,000t so its uses 4.5L to move 1 tonne 100kms. That more efficient then most cars on the road. Not bad considering it's packing 2 separate V16 turbo diesels.

graham7773 · 14-06-2012, 05:21 PM

Ben73, the single loco I referred to was in the US. 260 mile trips with 16000(?) tons of coal. The other one was the coal trains that run from near Lithgow NSW into Sydney past my place and north for several power stations. These trains have 4 locos each and believe me, they put out bulk diesel exhaust. What class of loco are you referring to by the way? I assume State Rail uses different types for different jobs. I don't know why State Rail stopped using the 46 class electric locos. They could lift 4,000 tons (imperial) each so four of them would have no problem with 16000 tonne trains and no diesel exhaust. Plus the lines to most of the power generators are electrified so no problem using them. By the way, I have been out of the job for some years now. How many tons of coal are carried in the current wagons? Last time I counted trucks, there were 31 on 4 locos

Neale · 14-06-2012, 05:40 PM

the chinese are looking at bringing back steam trains

http://www.gizmag.com/csr-project-13...omotive/22670/

graham7773 · 14-06-2012, 05:43 PM

Ben73.. so 16000 liters of fuel every 2 or so days? per train? simple calculation, 16000l x 2.674 = 42784kg of diesel exhaust. I might move to Beaudesert in Queensland. That place is supposed to have the cleanest air of any place in Australia. The train using 12000 liters is a coal train in the US doing a 260 mile trip so 520 miles round trip. The trains with 4 locos run round trips from Lithgow area NSW to Sydney and North. I live right on the main Western Line and they go past my place with monotonous regularity all night and some during the day.

aussie muscle · 15-06-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angeldust

edit. cant stad driving behind diesel cars/4wds

it's not too bad unless the owner hasn't maintained their engine and it spews volumes of putrid black smoke out the exhaust.

something a service would fix.

aussie muscle · 15-06-2012, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham7773

BRING BACK STEAM ENGINES. Most of their exhaust is water vapor,

you mean apart from the huge volume of smoke from burning coal to heat the water to steam?

they loose a bit of steam around the wheels, but that huge plume is coal smoke.

Uncle Niceguy · 15-06-2012, 09:16 AM

with the way our world is going they'll tell us that anything they perceive as unhealthy ie smoking & drinking, they'll just say "it causes cancer don't do it" line.