Does diesel cause 9,000 fatal heart attacks a year in the UK?
Diesel engines are quite popular in Europe, but this bit of news will send shivers down the lungs of people throughout the area. Scottish scientists working at Edinburgh University identified diesel exhaust soot particles as the chief culprits in 9,000 fatal heart attacks a year across the United Kingdom. The team of scientists discovered how soot particles move from the lungs into the blood stream, where they can do massive damage. It's not just pedestrians and bike riders who are at risk, said Professor Ken Donaldson, a toxicologist who helped lead the research team. Donaldson told the News Scotsman that, "These particles are so small they pass quite easily through face masks that people often wear to protect themselves from traffic fumes. Ironically drivers themselves might be most at risk if they are stuck in traffic, as the exhaust fumes from the car in front are drawn directly into their own cars."Diesel emission laws in Europe will force car makers to install filters on diesel engines that should reduce particulate emissions by 80 percent starting in 2008, but it is unclear if these filters will eliminate the particulates the researchers found to be to most damaging to people. The number of diesel engines in Europe has increased dramatically in recent years as gas prices climbed upwards. In the U.K. alone, the number of diesel cars grew from 1.6 million in 1994 to over 5 million today. The researchers did not report on how or if using biodiesel would reduce dangerous emissions levels, although everyone agrees the biofuel burns cleaner than standard diesel.
[Source: News Scotsman, Thanks to Steve Brezina]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Glenn A. 3:33PM (8/16/2006)
OK, so now where are all the people who visit autoblog who trash my Prius and think DIESEL cars are "the answer"?
Cue the crickets.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 4:36PM (8/16/2006)
I don't recall trashing the Prius, but I certainly do believe that (bio)diesel is a better solution to the current energy woes than either ethanol or hydrogen. Of course, the main consideration for any alternative is whether it allows us to expend LESS total energy doing the same amount of useful work -- that's where biodiesel shines (and where hydrogen REALLY stinks).
As for 9,000 fatal heart attacks per year *caused* by diesel soot -- frankly, I don't believe that. Heart attacks have many causes, chief of which are too much sugar and trans-fat in the diet, too little sleep, and too little exercise. So-called 'research' in medical fields is always suspect until it has been corroborated, preferably by someone trying to *disprove* the prior finding (and failing to do so), and preferably several times under varying conditions. Bias in this type of research is so ubiquitous that you can just basically count on anyone doing medical research having an axe to grind. Having read several hundred studies myself (the whole study, not just the summary or synopsis), I have found that the vast majority of them are severely flawed -- and that the data in any given study only rarely supports the published conclusion.
Reply
Charles S 7:01PM (8/16/2006)
Now, I have to ask, is all medical researches FLAWED, or just the ones we do not like?
It is certainly understandable if this is a lone study and others are not able to back up the claim, but I hate for this to go into the Smoking-Cancer territory, where a few disagreed and that's good enough to discredit thousands of other studies.
The truth is, more than one study has already linked diesel particulates to Asthma, and now this is linking particulates in blood to other diseases. Since there is an explosion of diesel in Europe, I would certainly be interest in future studies.
It's ok if people choose not to believe it, because no one is going to give up their diesels anyways.
I have no plans to argue for or against diesel, but people who want to defend diesel, PLEASE stop using biodiesel as a "solution" to the negative aspects of regular diesel. There will never be enough biodiesel to make a different in the overall emissions of all diesels on the road.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 10:05PM (8/16/2006)
"Now, I have to ask, is all medical researches FLAWED, or just the ones we do not like?"
Pretty much all of it is flawed, much of it to the extent of rendering it pointless. A lot of the stuff I have had to sift through would not get a passing grade in a high school science class. And this is refereed, published research. One that comes readily to mind: A group of researchers removed all of the sugar from the diet for their type II diabetic test group. There were several dramatic health improvements. Published conclusion: "Animal protein is bad for diabetics." No, I'm not kidding; this crap was published in a major journal.
"..but I hate for this to go into the Smoking-Cancer territory, where a few disagreed and that's good enough to discredit thousands of other studies."
It was well-understood as early as the 1950's that cigarettes were bad for your health, and I don't recall seeing *any* study that indicated any health benefit, even though there were some that de-emphasized the damage (much like current research into carbohydrates in diet). The tobacco industry simply purchased enough politicians to prevent them from going out of business. Politicians are easier to buy than good science.
"There will never be enough biodiesel to make a different in the overall emissions of all diesels on the road."
Wrong again. But the problem is actually the other way around -- dinodiesel is going to increase in price much faster than biodiesel, which in turn will spur biodiesel production. Since biodiesel can be produced from nearly any plant or animal source that produces lipids (including some common varieties of pond scum), there is no shortage of feedstock.
We will still probably have to burn a lot less of whatever fuel we use, because we will have no choice. However, some of the numbers I have seen indicate that we could run all of the vehicle traffic in the US on 100% biodiesel using less than 5% of the land area in the US (about the amount currently used to grow corn), growing algae fed with offal, sewage, and feedlot droppings. Those numbers may be off a bit, but with a big effort in conservation, it certainly looks to me like biodiesel could make a major contribution.
It certainly has a much better energy-recovery ratio that corn-based ethanol (which is actually negative), and even better than sugarcane-based or even cellulose-based ethanol.
Reply
Charles S 2:24AM (8/17/2006)
"Since biodiesel can be produced from nearly any plant or animal source that produces lipids (including some common varieties of pond scum), there is no shortage of feedstock."
Funny, reading one of the recent posts here at autobloggreen.com, it mentions that Germany has to import 60,000 ton of biofuel from Malaysia. If there is so much feedstock, would it not be cheaper to collect all sorts of bio-trash around all of Europe, rather than having oil shipped nearly half way across the globe? How about that famous turkey-guts-to-oil technology featured in the Discovered magazine? It's been years and so far results have been less than promising.
Don't get me wrong, I support biofuels, but the expectation is too high. Biofuels will not, CANNOT replace our oil consumption. It will only supplement it.
On the other hand, if diesel-lovers get their wishes and everyone starts trading in their gassers for diesels, good luck in finding enough biodiesel to satisfy that "cleaner" diesel defense.
About the off-topic of medical research being flawed, I do agree that there are many poorly conducted researches, but that does not mean that ANY research should automatically be assumed as propaganda. Just as you have mentioned that cigarettes are known carcinogen decades ago, it is already common knowledge that diesel emissions are bad for respiratory health. If people want to support diesel by ignoring anything that’s negative about diesel, then they are no different than the smokers who rather believe smoking is harmless, than to accept that they have to quit.
Reply
Mike 9:36AM (8/17/2006)
Is that "biotrash from Europe" just another name for "Eurotrash?"
Reply
dt 10:41AM (8/17/2006)
This does not entirely surprise me. PM formation in the absence of sulfur is caused by incomplete combustion of the fuel droplets -- there is a temperature gradient across the droplet, and this is particularly noticeable in diesel because of the relatively slow burn rate of diesel fuel. Modern "clean" diesels suppress this considerably by injecting extremely fine droplets with very precise timing for optimum burn. While this has succeeded in reducing PM output significantly, the PM that remains is in the smaller fractions, where they bypass the lungs' defenses and may end up in the bloodstream.
Gasoline users should take no comfort here. It was once thought that the much higher volatility of gasoline meant that PM formation is much lower than for diesel, and in fact PM mass from gasoline engines is far lower than from even modern diesels. But PM number is comparable if not higher, that is, gasoline PM is in the ultrafine and nanoparticle fractions, much smaller than modern diesel. Gasoline PM shows significantly greater "chromosomal activity" (genetic damage) than diesel PM, at least in lab studies. Furthermore, because of gasoline's high vapor pressure, fugitive emissions on the well-to-tank side contribute to secondary aerosol and ozone production (this is less of an issue with diesel, which has ~1000 times lower vapor pressure, and even less for biodiesel). That is, it is not enough to look at just tailpipe emissions.
Let's just accept the fact that burning anything in the quantities we do has significant downsides. From a health perspectives, combustion engines, no matter what fuel they run (and whether it's a car or a coal plant), should have particulate filters on the exhaust.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:13AM (8/17/2006)
"About the off-topic of medical research being flawed, I do agree that there are many poorly conducted researches, but that does not mean that ANY research should automatically be assumed as propaganda."
Wrong again. You can pick just about any 'study' in medicine or nutrition, and accurately predict the contents of the synopsis & conclusion by examination of the funding source alone, without knowing anything else about the 'study'. Since most doctors don't have time to read the actual studies, what filters down to us through them is essentially Political Correctness.
Political Correctness makes bad medicine, just like it makes bad science, and bad economics.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:22AM (8/17/2006)
"Let's just accept the fact that burning anything in the quantities we do has significant downsides. From a health perspectives, combustion engines, no matter what fuel they run (and whether it's a car or a coal plant), should have particulate filters on the exhaust."
Well said, dt.
I might add that INTERNAL combustion engines are much more of a problem than EXTERNAL combustion engines. External combustion can be more complete, more efficient, and much less polluting (in part because it doesn't require high compression).
I would also like to emphasize the part "burning anything in the quantities we do". Reduction of the total amount of energy used is just as important as using a "green" source -- maybe more so.
Reply
Charles S 6:48PM (8/17/2006)
"Political Correctness makes bad medicine"
I have no idea if all research having anything to do with "political correctness" but with your views, then we should never bother to do any research at all. AIDS research is probably propaganda of the Corporate X, and cancer research is some devilish plot for Company Y.
I would not bother eating any asperin, cause you know, it probably doesn't cure headache, but just some drug companies making up lies for funding studies.
Truth is, it would be GREAT that all studies are conducted only by neutral parties, but since we have politicalize and moralize our health policies, the government itself will never be that neutral body for science. Besides, we keep on slashing funding, so there really is nowhere else to turn but sponsorship by those who have interests.
Personally, I have not idea why any company would fund studies on diesel particulates. Oil companies? Car companies? If they are in the business of making money, sell what's popular, why care about health effects?
The pandora box is opened anyways, there is no going back. Diesel, gas, whatever. No one can do much to curb the status quo.
Reply