Diesel Exhaust fums cause cancer (Quote W.H.O.)

pippip

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Interesting. Lets scare a few more people.

Anan1

You need to post that in a 'how can I remove my DPF' thread.

irishbucka

so does smoking

Indricotherium

pippip wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Interesting. Lets scare a few more people.

I'd be more concerned with how filthy it looks spilled down the side of cars and how manky the black smoke billowing out of the back is.

Along with the noise they make.

Guy:Incognito

Is there anyhing that doesnt cause cancer nowadays?

dar83

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is there anyhing that doesnt cause cancer nowadays?

Turbo petrol engined fast cars. With go fast stripes and no wiener characteristics!


Obviously. :P

challengemaster

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is there anyhing that doesnt cause cancer nowadays?

Physiological Fun-fact #9263: Being alive causes cancer.

Big Nasty

I agree completely - all diesel cars should be banned.

I've been calling it 'fuel of the devil' for years now and I'm happy to see I've been scientifically proven correct.

Diesel drivers = suckers (commiserations to the poster above)

That's hardly a surprise, diesel exhaust has been known to cause cancer for years but of course the big oil companies for years paid scientists to say that it doesn't or "probably" doesn't. It's too easy to blame smoking for everything!

And of course our stupid Government and most of the E.U charges tax based on a gas that is harmless to human health, we don't even have politicians with brains to understand that C02 is essential for life on earth, but instead charge a tax on it.They actually give incentives to those that drive the most polluting cars on the road. It makes me laugh at how ignorant and stupid European politicians actually are, and we are paying for it!

Just one example of many why Europe or the E.U has failed!

Jimbob 83

Cows farting causes cancer and it's really rude

Anan1

Deleted User wrote: »

That's hardly a surprise, diesel exhaust has been known to cause cancer for years but of course the big oil companies for years paid scientists to say that it doesn't or "probably" doesn't. It's too easy to blame smoking for everything!

And of course our stupid Government and most of the E.U charges tax based on a gas that is harmless to human health, we don't even have politicians with brains to understand that C02 is essential for life on earth, but instead charge a tax on it.They actually give incentives to those that drive the most polluting cars on the road. It makes me laugh at how ignorant and stupid European politicians actually are, and we are paying for it!

Just one example of many why Europe or the E.U has failed!

Have you heard of either global warming or particulate filters?

MuppetCheck

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I agree completely - all diesel cars should be banned.

I've been calling it 'fuel of the devil' for years now and I'm happy to see I've been scientifically proven correct.

Diesel drivers = suckers (commiserations to the poster above)

I love these posts. Usually from people that do small mileage where running costs aren't a serious issue.

It's been well known for years alright, and makes a mockery of this country's motor tax system. But there are so many everyday items that cause it I find it hard to keep track of them all. We should probably never leave the house at this stage.

Leonard Hofstadter

It is well known that the particulates and nitrous oxide emissions that come out of a diesel engine are cancer causing.

Petrol engines are far better for our health and the local environment, therefore there should be tax penalties on diesels (like there is in the UK with the company car tax), and that's before we get to the fact that for the vast majority of drivers petrols are a much more sensible option, because they don't have DPFs and DMFs to go expensively wrong if you drive around town most of the time.

People are buying diesels to drive two miles down the road to go to the shops or to drop the children to school to save 50 cent a week on the bloody car tax:rolleyes:!

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

Have you heard of either global warming or particulate filters?

You see this is the damage the media has done throughout the years, brainwashing the public with the theory of anthropogenic warming. Despite what people believe, it is only a theory.

All the computer models are warm biased, therefore every prediction is going to have a warming scenario.

The u.k met spent over a billion pounds to buy a new super computer, this is the computer that predicted the u.k would be in severe drought this summer, and the London busses had advertisements saying "we are in drought" while Londoners were walking around up to their ankles in water, and the recent rains make total crap of their predictions.

if these very expensive state of the art computers can't predict the climate, which is what it was predicting by saying the u.k would be in severe drought this BBQ summer, then they expect us to swallow they can predict what will happen 100+ years into the future?

This is the same met office that had big headlines in British papers back in 2000 saying and I quote " in 10 years, children won't know what snow is"

This is what the public is paying heavily for, no wonder Europe is so fu***d!

The British government along with many euro countries including ourselves are forking hundreds of billions out of our hard earned on this theory through tax!

There is increasing support that the sun has soooo much more to the climate that what the so called climatologist's admit, because they can't tell the governments to tax the sun for taking hissy fits every 300 years or so.

Rant over I can go on.......

lostboy

im sure the oily smoke from my 2 stroker also causes cancer

carbon nanotube

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is there anyhing that doesnt cause cancer nowadays?

go faster stripes have a detrimental effect on health it has been noted. particularly one over 3 inches thick.

By the way, particle filters remove fine particles, which don't help but they can't remove the carcnegenic gases!

Big Nasty

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I love these posts.

Me too!

V8 Guzzlers all the way dude!

eth0

Petrol FTW!!

MuppetCheck

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Me too!

V8 Guzzlers all the way dude!

Can always dream:)

Big Nasty

I'm no mechanic but here's something I've been thinking about oil burners recently:

How does a modern 1.9tdi engine manage to put out less CO2 than a 2.0 petrol? Is it becuase the dpf is capturing a lot of the emissions? What I'm getting at is when the diesel comes off the production line brand new and is tested its emissions are feck all in comparison to a similar sized petrol but as time goes on do they throw out as much if not more emissions than a similar sized petrol?

Next question is if the above is true why don't diesels fail their emissions on first test? We all know diesels belch out a rake of smoke on a long run which (I gather) is the DPF cleaning itself out and being able to still pass the emissions level come test time - which would also explain how the likes of a 1.5cdi Megane (or whatever) being used for only local runs give trouble. If this is true the whole diesel gig is a fcukin' farce!

JJJJNR

Burnt toast causes cancer.

Airline frequent fliers 'radiation poisoning risks' from space 'solar flare' storm activity

Why Raise Your Cancer Risks by Drinking Tap Water?

eth0

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I'm no mechanic but here's something I've been thinking about oil burners recently:

How does a modern 1.9tdi engine manage to put out less CO2 than a 2.0 petrol? Is it becuase the dpf is capturing a lot of the emissions? What I'm getting at is when the diesel comes off the production line brand new and is tested its emissions are feck all in comparison to a similar sized petrol but as time goes on do they throw out as much if not more emissions than a similar sized petrol?

No a DPF wouldn't take out any CO2. Burning a litre of diesel will get you more CO2 than burning a litre of petrol but then the diesel engine wouldn't rev as fast and and has a higher compression ratio that makes it more efficient.

Some crowd are trying to make a petrol engine with a fierce high compression ratio that uses no spark plugs and relies on auto-ignition like a diesel engine. If this works for them it will be a very efficient engine

jd

Deleted User wrote: »

The u.k met spent over a billion pounds to buy a new super computer,.

£30 million actually

leeroybrown

MCMLXXV wrote: »

How does a modern 1.9tdi engine manage to put out less CO2 than a 2.0 petrol? Is it becuase the dpf is capturing a lot of the emissions? What I'm getting at is when the diesel comes off the production line brand new and is tested its emissions are feck all in comparison to a similar sized petrol but as time goes on do they throw out as much if not more emissions than a similar sized petrol?

No. The DPF is there to reduce the soot issues the unburnt particles in diesel exhaust causes. There's nothing it can do about CO2. The lower CO2 output from a diesel engine is just a product of the high-pressure spark-free combustion mechanism and higher energy density of the fuel.

leeroybrown

Deleted User wrote: »

The u.k met spent over a billion pounds to buy a new super computer

As pointed out above it was approximately £30m and your "estimate" of this figure was probably the most scientifically accurate thing you've said in your post.

Back on topic...

carbon nanotube

jd wrote: »

£30 million actually

and the government spends 7 million on an Olympic opening event to have cows and sheep grazing fields with artificial rain.

nice.

Anan1

Deleted User wrote: »

You see this is the damage the media has done throughout the years, brainwashing the public with the theory of anthropogenic warming. Despite what people believe, it is only a theory.

All the computer models are warm biased, therefore every prediction is going to have a warming scenario.

The u.k met spent over a billion pounds to buy a new super computer, this is the computer that predicted the u.k would be in severe drought this summer, and the London busses had advertisements saying "we are in drought" while Londoners were walking around up to their ankles in water, and the recent rains make total crap of their predictions.

if these very expensive state of the art computers can't predict the climate, which is what it was predicting by saying the u.k would be in severe drought this BBQ summer, then they expect us to swallow they can predict what will happen 100+ years into the future?

This is the same met office that had big headlines in British papers back in 2000 saying and I quote " in 10 years, children won't know what snow is"

This is what the public is paying heavily for, no wonder Europe is so fu***d!

The British government along with many euro countries including ourselves are forking hundreds of billions out of our hard earned on this theory through tax!

There is increasing support that the sun has soooo much more to the climate that what the so called climatologist's admit, because they can't tell the governments to tax the sun for taking hissy fits every 300 years or so.

Rant over I can go on.......

This is way OT, but global warning has long been accepted as real by the scientific community. Vested interests spend large amounts of money to maintain doubt in the minds of the masses, in exactly the same way that the tobacco industry did when faced with irrefutable evidence that smoking caused cancer. It's nice to be fooled, because it means you don't have to change your behaviour.

Deleted User wrote: »

By the way, particle filters remove fine particles, which don't help but they can't remove the carcnegenic gases!

Isn't it the particles, rather than the gases, that are carcinogenic?

eth0

Anan1 wrote: »

Vested interests spend large amounts of money to maintain doubt in the minds of the masses, in exactly the same way that the tobacco industry did when faced with irrefutable evidence that smoking caused cancer. It's nice to be fooled, because it means you don't have to change your behaviour. :)Isn't it the particles, rather than the gases, that are carcinogenic?

Pepsi commissioned a study a while back that found that drinking Phosphoric acid wasn't bad.

It reminds me of the "Windows is cheaper than Linux" supposedly independent studies that Microsoft was throwing money at a while back.

but the worst for this is food I'd say. Loads of unhealthy stuff being propped up by these 'independent' studies

A_Sober_Paddy

Jimbob 83 wrote: »

Cows farting causes cancer and it's really rude

If your referring to them emitting methane gas...its their burps not their farts that releases that gas

leeroybrown

leeroybrown wrote: »

As pointed out above it was approximately £30m and your "estimate" of this figure was probably the most scientifically accurate thing you've said in your post.

Back on topic...

I will re read the article on the cost of the computer, the science behind global warming however is not very scientific.

The attitude is, shut what else can it be but co2!

People are too willing to swallow the junk science!

Edit, yes 30 million I just saw, oh I'm so bad aren't I?

Anan1

Deleted User wrote: »

I will re read the article on the cost of the computer, the science behind global warming however is not very scientific.

The attitude is, shut what else can it be but co2!

People are too willing to swallow the junk science!

Edit, yes 30 million I just saw, oh I'm so bad aren't I?

What do you mean 'not very scientific'? The scientific community has been telling us that global warming is real for years now, what's not scientific about that?

Leonard Hofstadter

Anan1 wrote: »

What do you mean 'not very scientific'? The scientific community has been telling us that global warming is real for years now, what's not scientific about that?

There are plenty of scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made. The other point is that the climate has always been changing and always will change. I'm not at all convinced that CO2 is making it change any more than it otherwise might.

I think one point that is missed though is that petrol and diesel are fossil fuels and therefore are resources, so however misguided taxing car emissions is, it is still necessary because we have to get off them eventually.

The system does need to be changed so that it promotes low CO2 vehicles powered by petrol because of the health and local environment benefits of the fuel over diesel, and there should be VRT and road tax penalties for buying diesel like there are in the UK with company car tax.

Anan1

captainspeed wrote: »

There are plenty of scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made. The other point is that the climate has always been changing and always will change. I'm not at all convinced that CO2 is making it change any more than it otherwise might.

With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you (or I) are convinced. The international scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced that man-made global warming is real. At this point, you may as well refuse to accept gravity.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you (or I) are convinced. The international scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced that man-made global warming is real. At this point, you may as well refuse to accept gravity.

Gravity is only a theory! It's all a big conspiracy backed by vested interest groups connected to airlines to propagate this myth of "gravity". There is a significant number of scientists who disagree over the exact mechanisms by which this "gravity" might work; therefore it probably doesn't exist at all!

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

What do you mean 'not very scientific'? The scientific community has been telling us that global warming is real for years now, what's not scientific about that?

THe so called scientific community is not so willing to change their views on it after so many years of convincing themselves that mainly C02 is the cause.

Most scientific papers that contradict the C02 theory are submitted for peer review and rejected by groups of scientists who are convinced that C02 is the cause. So tell me what chance has science got ?

The sun is thought to be the main driver in the warming since satellite records began in 1979 and in the last 10 years there has not being any significant rise in temps, in fact the northern sea ice is back at a thickness last recorded around 2005, don't quote me on that I don't have the exact figures, here so if the C02 arguement was valid, how then are we not warmer than say, 2005 ?

The Sun is going through it's period of very low activity and there is a delay in when that will effect earth's climate mainly due to the oceans, because they have stored a lot of the energy in the last 30 odd years, it takes time for them to cool off and they are cooling as we speak.

Ireland is one good example of the Atlantic Ocean keeping Ireland mainly mild. The jet steap usually blows the warm moist air directly over us and one of the reasons the coold winters of 09-10-11 were due to a blocking high keeping that flow of air away from us.

Blocking higs are one way a sun in a quiet phase can effect our climate. The delay in the oceans cooling takes years!

During the little ice age the sun was in the same phase it is now. It is estimated that in 30 years we could be in a time of extream cold. Again it's all theory. They also have theorys that the Sun could effect the earths core increasing earthquakes and volcano's! All interesting stuff!

During cool periods you can have as much extream weather events as when it's warm, but they don't really mean it's trending towards warm or cool. it's just weather.

People got to research both sides of the arguments and make up their own minds rather than accept one side of the debate that is always fed down the general publics throats, mainly with the media to blame, but then again look at who controls the worlds media! That's real power!

And noone is in denial of a warming trend from 1980-2005, only that C02 is the primary cause, but it's now trending back the other way, and if the sun doesn't wake up in the next 10 years it could be a lot cooler than it is now based on what research has been done since the sun went quiet a few years ago and the dropping off of the worlds temps, and the link between the low solar activity and the little ice age!

Ireland has broken records for cold in the last few years, and recently in May. And not just ireland. But does it mean we are warming or cooling in general ? noone will know that for at least 10 years!

Anan1

@ Mad_Lad - You're confusing climate change with weather. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and our production of CO2 is causing global warming, those are scientifically accepted facts. I'm sorry, but when you ask a question like this it's just not possible to take you seriously.

Deleted User wrote: »

so if the C02 arguement was valid, how then are we not warmer than say, 2005 ?

ShadowHearth

As long as I am alive I will be a "petrol"head!

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

@ Mad_Lad - You're confusing climate change with weather. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and our production of CO2 is causing global warming, those are scientifically accepted facts. I'm sorry, but when you ask a question like this it's just not possible to take you seriously.

I'm not confusing climate and weather! not at all!!!

When you are unwilling to open your ming to unpopular theory's as a possible cause, then it's hard to take you seriously!

There was a time when so called scientists believed you could fall off the edge of the earth, and that the sun moved around the earth! They were wrong!

WHy are you so willing to believe that it it C02 ? Why are people not willing to allow the possibility that it is a change in the sun ? or just cycles ?

I can tell you that if it were C02 then we should be much warmer than we actually are globally atm!

There is in face increasing acceptance to the theory that climate can vary throughout the globe. And I'm not talking weather!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a time when so called scientists believed you could fall off the edge of the earth, and that the sun moved around the earth! They were wrong!

Lol. Just lol.

So scientists that believe that C02 is not the main driver in the so called theory of man made warming. So would you laugh at them too ? Why are people so keen to accept the C02 argument, without at least doing a lot of research ? that's what is laughable!

I'm wasting my time anyway here, people should research themselves!

doopa

Deleted User wrote: »

So scientists that believe that C02 is not the main driver in the so called theory of man made warming. So would you laugh at them too ? Why are people so keen to accept the C02 argument, without at least doing a lot of research ? that's what is laughable!

I'm wasting my time anyway here, people should research themselves!

Do we not already pay people to do this 'research' for us - they have a name - scientors, scientations or scientist something like that?

So should we stop paying them? Or maybe just privatise them and get big oil to look after their wages, I mean what could go wrong.

pajo1981

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm wasting my time anyway here, people should research themselves!

Manbearpig?

kippy

Here's a list of things that can cause cancer (allegedly) - better add diesel fumes to it:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm
Edit - I see it is already on there.

doopa

kippy wrote: »

Here's a list of things that can cause cancer (allegedly) - better add diesel fumes to it:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm

It was already there.

Green Diesel

Deleted User wrote: »

So scientists that believe that C02 is not the main driver in the so called theory of man made warming. So would you laugh at them too ? Why are people so keen to accept the C02 argument, without at least doing a lot of research ? that's what is laughable!

I'm wasting my time anyway here, people should research themselves!

It's the way science works. If you're doing research you have to view peer reviewed papers and journals as evidence, not (for instance) bloggers or the Conspiracy Theory forum on boards.ie. The consensus among scientists is that Co2 is the main driver of climate change. As science evolves new empirical evidence can be gathered and other theories devised. But until somebody disproves the current theory, it remains valid. I accept the consensus of scientific endeavor, in time if new evidence emerges, the theory will be revised. It's the same in every scientific field. It's why we are currently using these amazing machines to converse with each other.

Of course it's possible that climate change is only due to solar cycles, or the earths tilt, or God turned up the thermostat, but the best empirical evidence gathered to date suggests it is CO2.

Green Diesel

Green Diesel wrote: »

It's the way science works. If you're doing research you have to view peer reviewed papers and journals as evidence, not (for instance) bloggers or the Conspiracy Theory forum on boards.ie. The consensus among scientists is that Co2 is the main driver of climate change. As science evolves new empirical evidence can be gathered and other theories devised. But until somebody disproves the current theory, it remains valid. I accept the consensus of scientific endeavor, in time if new evidence emerges, the theory will be revised. It's the same in every scientific field. It's why we are currently using these amazing machines to converse with each other.

Of course it's possible that climate change is only due to solar cycles, or the earths tilt, or God turned up the thermostat, but the best empirical evidence gathered to date suggests it is CO2.

I would accept you argument only for the fact that there is science just as plausible as the man made co2 warming theory, however when you have scientists that don't agree with the science simply because it goes against popular theory among certain scientists doesn't really help!

I did believe in man made warming, but that was because my information mainly came from the media, but I started to research it myself.

doopa

Deleted User wrote: »

I would accept you argument only for the fact that there is science just as plausible as the man made co2 warming theory, however when you have scientists that don't agree with the science simply because it goes against popular theory among certain scientists doesn't really help!

I did believe in man made warming, but that was because my information mainly came from the media, but I started to research it myself.

As a greater man than me said it is plausible that there is a chocolate teapot floating around the sun. Ok maybe it wasn't chocolate but still. It is plausible that there is one floating about the sun. However, having that as a theory is useless since it can't be disproved.

The theory that man made CO2 contributes to climate change can be disproven by showing the impact of other gases, solar flares etc. To date, no evidence has been put forward that any other contribution has made as significant an impact as CO2. Until such times as someone provides evidence (not theory) that other factors are responsible, then the current theory will stand. It stands because it has so far proved itself capable of making predictions about the state of the planet much better than any other theories.

Secondly, the idea that there is no consensus amongst scientists is not true. The IPCC is essentially the collection of all scientists working on climate predictions. It represents the overwhelming body of people working in this area. People who deny climate change have historically been either directly employed by big oil or have other vested interests. To suggest that there is controvesy within the scientific community is wrong. They aren't doing it to be PC. When you say certain scientists you are implying they are a minority - they aren't. The IPCC is unaminously behind the man made climate change theory. They differ on the extent of it sure, but not the central idea.

galwaytt

lostboy wrote: »

im sure the oily smoke from my 2 stroker also causes cancer

...yes, but it smells fabulous !

(rgv250k owner )

galwaytt

doopa wrote: »

As a greater man than me said it is plausible that there is a chocolate teapot floating around the sun. Ok maybe it wasn't chocolate but still. It is plausible that there is one floating about the sun. However, having that as a theory is useless since it can't be disproved.

The theory that man made CO2 contributes to climate change can be disproven by showing the impact of other gases, solar flares etc. To date, no evidence has been put forward that any other contribution has made as significant an impact as CO2. Until such times as someone provides evidence (not theory) that other factors are responsible, then the current theory will stand. It stands because it has so far proved itself capable of making predictions about the state of the planet much better than any other theories.

Secondly, the idea that there is no consensus amongst scientists is not true. The IPCC is essentially the collection of all scientists working on climate predictions. It represents the overwhelming body of people working in this area. People who deny climate change have historically been either directly employed by big oil or have other vested interests. To suggest that there is controvesy within the scientific community is wrong. They aren't doing it to be PC. When you say certain scientists you are implying they are a minority - they aren't. The IPCC is unaminously behind the man made climate change theory. They differ on the extent of it sure, but not the central idea.

....but we can pull as many scientist with the opposite opinion out of the woodwork as well, so your point proves nothing.

I remember distinctly from school in the late 70's and early 80's being told that we were all to be gripped in another Ice Age - without the comedy - and that all the oil was nigh-on gone, and that that too was the view of the 'majority of scientists'. And, of course, it was rubbish.

The fact of the matter is that current, accurate measurements are so recent, and the period so short, that they cannot be relied on for proof -in EITHER direction -of the direction of climate change. Our 'calamitous' interpretation of any data, or scientific 'opinion', could yet be proven to nothing of the sort.

Don't confuse this with the fact at this moment the world is changing, right now in the direction of warming. But I don't think there is on iota of certainty attached as to the CAUSE of it.

I mean, take a look at this: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/

It may be 100% correct. Or 100% wrong.

But one things for sure: it's 100% not known which.

And here's a scientist I prepared earlier ... http://jimunro.blogspot.ie/2009/09/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-worlds.html where in he states:

"“In their zeal to confuse the public, politicians like Minister Smith use the term ‘carbon’ when they are referring to the odourless, colourless gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) that comprises just 3.62% of so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere, of which just 3.4% is human caused, meaning that the human contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is a miniscule 0.123%, the equivalent of 12 cents in $100."


And to think that we fools tolerate carbon taxes. We are, truly, Muppets.

Well said!