Diesel emissions bad for your brain?

[vifferman]

What a surprise.

I've suspected for a while that commuting by bike every day is doing my heid in - now The Scientists have confirmed it (article in this morning's Harold):

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10497757

[Pwalo]

Notice the word could.

[Jimmy B]

hey Vifferman how's it hanging ?

I find those cold clear still winter mornings especially bad in the motorway dips around spag junction. When I worked out south I swear I was half pissed by the time I hit the Newmarket viaduct, lucky it didnt last too long but noticeable for sure. Not too bad these days cause I take a different route but theres no shortage of Bus's etc and I cant often get past them at intersections. I try and hold my breath for a bit.

[Badjelly]

The research quoted in the article is a small piece in a large jigsaw puzzle. On its own it proves very little. But there is now plenty of evidence that air pollutants can and do damage health.

[vifferman]

I suspect that a worse problem (one that's probably not been investigated) is the fumes from the shitty petrol the oil comapnies fob off on us. All that xylene and toluene they add to boost the octane rating can't be healthy. And the problem when you're communtering in urban areas is that most of the vehicles are just warming up, so they're running rich and spewing out more noxious crap. Furthermore, the lack of any emissions control (how many vehicles do you see spewing out oil and diesel fumes?!?!) means we're being subject to poisonous gases all the time. It's only the fact the country is narrow and subject to lotsa wind and rain that saves us from all choking.

Y'see? My rambling and keboard dyxsliexia is proff innit that my brain's slowly dying from exhasut toxins...

[Badjelly]

I suspect that a worse problem (one that's probably not been investigated) is the fumes from the shitty petrol the oil companies fob off on us. All that xylene and toluene they add to boost the octane rating can't be healthy.

Yeah, especially when it goes straight through a two-stroke engine unburned.

But, I think you're right, and it's something the pro-lead people said before lead was banned in this country. (But then, they would say that.) Trouble is, making cleaner fuel costs more money. Look how long it took for the government to start forcing the oil companies to supply cleaner diesel. It's all trade-offs.

[Pwalo]

The research quoted in the article is a small piece in a large jigsaw puzzle. On its own it proves very little. But there is now plenty of evidence that air pollutants can and do damage health.

Although to date I am unaware of any coroner listing cause of death as 'pollution', or 'vehicle exhaust fumes'.

But I must admit I'm not a fan of being stuck behind a nice smokey diesel truck, or 4WD.

[CookMySock]

I'm amazed how they can use the words could, and may - and still write such a persuasive article. Maybe the whole intention of the article was to persuade, even with no factual basis to it.

What is more amazing, is how religiously people suck this type of material down as if it is the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts - so help me god. For real?

DB

[Swoop]

I feel an ACC claim coming on.....

[vifferman]

Although to date I am unaware of any coroner listing cause of death as 'pollution', or 'vehicle exhaust fumes'.

Yet somehow the Gummint statisticians are able to say that "x00 deaths a year are attributable to exhaust emissions". How they hell can they tell?
I guess when my father-in-law dies from emphysema, they'll include that in their propaganda...

It's something the pro-lead people said before lead was banned in this country. (But then, they would say that.) Trouble is, making cleaner fuel costs more money. Look how long it took for the government to start forcing the oil companies to supply cleaner diesel. It's all trade-offs.

I recall that when lead was taken out of the petrol, the "Big 4" complained it was going to cost $100meeelions to upgrade the refinery to produce petrol that achieved the octane ratings without adding crap to it. So, the WienerGummint of the time gave in to their bleating and allowed them to just add xylene and toluene instead (which is what caused all those "alleged" problems at the time, when these solvents attacked the rubber in the carbs and fuel lines). Strangely, other gummints - like the various state gummints in Oz) took a very hard line on anyone doing the same thing! And of course, the Big 4 have really suffered financially, so they have to keep hiking the fuel prices.
And of course, to keep the consumer from being hit too hard in the pocket, and prevent the flow-on effects fuelling inflation, the Gummint have reduced the tax component accordingly....

[ManDownUnder]

Holy hell batman! Diesel emissions bad for the health?

Commission a study - pour public money into it. We need a commission of enquiry, EEG, EKG, TLA and BFD stat!

I'm just glad that speeding doesn't kill...

[The Pastor]

evidently 700 people a year die from diesel emmissons a year. acording to my uni lecturer. he has more degrees than i have (and have had) bikes.

i don't think hes one to say things like that with out doing the research himself or at least quote it from a source which he knows is true.

do i belive it? not sure. dont know the facts for or agaisnt it.

will i hold my breath when im behind a bus/ 4x4? sure it stinks anyway.

he also said its not the thick black smoke thats the worry, its the stuff you can't see. the black stuff quickly falls to the ground because the particals are big. even if you to inhale them, your nose snot would stop most of them getting into your lungs / blood.

[Badjelly]

I'm amazed how they can use the words could, and may - and still write such a persuasive article. Maybe the whole intention of the article was to persuade, even with no factual basis to it.

What is more amazing, is how religiously people suck this type of material down as if it is the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts - so help me god. For real?

This is the problem with media coverage of science by press release. As I said before, the study reported was a small piece in a large jigsaw. On its own it proved nothing. Whether the article was intended to persuade, I don't know. From the point of view of the study authors, the intention was to justify their existence. (This is fine by me, it's interesting research, though I don't think it proves anything much on its own.) From the point of view of the journalist, I don't know, but I have noticed that journalists have the idea that measuring changes in the brain associated with stress or emotions or whatever proves something more than just observing the stress or emotions or whatever. (As if you could experience stress or emotions without changes in the brain. Thinking consists of changes in the brain.)

However the article only covered the big picture in passing. The big picture is that the people who have looked into these things think that pollution does have effects (negative ones) on human health. It hurts and kills people with respiratory problems and it causes people to have respiratory problems in the first place. I can't judge the evidence behind this, but I'm inclined to accept it.

[vifferman]

This is the problem with media coverage of science by press release. As I said before, the study reported was a small piece in a large jigsaw. On its own it proved nothing. Whether the article was intended to persuade, I don't know.

No, like most media crap, it was intended mainly to be provocative enough that people would read it.
If it said, "The results are inconclusive" or "the scientists don't really know, so can't say one way or the other", then it would be too bland.
"Shock! Horror! Traffic fumes kill baby fur seals and cause vifferman to have to wash his bike gear too frequently! Crappy used Jap imports and shitty fuels implicated! Gummint to do nothing! Oil companies plead poverty!"

It [pollution] hurts and kills people with respiratory problems and it causes people to have respiratory problems in the first place. I can't judge the evidence behind this, but I'm inclined to accept it.

Well, it makes sense, dunnit? I mean, pollution's unlikely to be good for us.

[Badjelly]

No, like most media crap, it was intended mainly to be provocative enough that people would read it.
If it said, "The results are inconclusive" or "the scientists don't really know, so can't say one way or the other", then it would be too bland.

The headline is

Diesel exhaust could damage brain function, scientists say

What part of "could" did you miss?