I've never understood the anti smoking arguement that smoking costs the NHS millions/billions per year. If people don't smoke then they just live longer and end needing hip replacements or expensive care homes. Then of course you need to factor in the tax that people pay on cigs.
So maybe smoking is a bit like owning a car?
We should all drive large 4x4's with diesel engines - great for the government (all that lovely tax on fuel) and great for our pensions (everyone dies young), not so great for the environment, but then it seems that no one gives a damn about it anyway. And please remember that you must buy a new car every year, otherwise your neighbours, friends and work mates will never give you any 'respect' :)
Not sure who the original author is but I like this line taken from
agentmagenta.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-to-live-long...l
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride"!
|
There's the political angle to this too.
UCLA, where did they do their research ? Diesel cars are banned in California are they not ?
Could it be due to reduced particluate emissions of new diesel cars and the possibility of the Ford's and GM's of this world introducing these to their home market to meet demand. Political lobbying getting a head start ?
"Cathy Ross, cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said it was already known that prolonged exposure to air pollution resulted in a small increased risk of death from heart disease and stroke.
She said: "For most people, we know that everyday measures such as eating a healthy diet low in saturated fat, taking regular physical activity and giving up smoking will have more impact on reducing the risk of developing heart disease."
|
|
All vehicle fumes are toxic, we take that as a 'given'. But all these arguments about the dangers of low-level exposure to diesel fumes never seem to have touched on the obvious - that lorry drivers, bus drivers, train drivers CV mechanics and people working in the engine rooms of ships would show a statistically significant increase in whatever symptoms are being studied compared to the general population.
|
|
There is always going to be health problems with particulates in diesel,due to the fact the lungs are unable to clear large particles, this has been discussed since the 70`s and they are only just doing something about it, OR are they??
|
the lungs are unable to clear large particles this has been discussed since the 70`s and they are only just doing something about it OR are they??
It's not the large particles that are the problem, the PM10 and PM2.5's, less than 10 micrometers and 2.5 micormeters respectively, which cause the probs. The big ones get stuck in your nose and turn your handkerchief black when you blow your nose.
PM10's mostly get stuck in your nose and throat. Major sources of PM10:
airborne road dust and soil
vehicle exhausts
secondary particles
coal combustion
incineration and the metals industry
road salt and marine aerosols
Source: www.hpa.org.uk/essex/factsheets/pm10.htm
|
>>It's not the large particles that are the problem, the PM10 and PM2.5's, less than 10 micrometers and 2.5 micormeters respectively, which cause the probs. The big ones get stuck in your nose and turn your handkerchief black when you blow your nose.
PM10's mostly get stuck in your nose and throat. Major sources of PM10:
I really dont care what size they are,they are all a problem as far as I am concerned, and dont do your lungs/blood any good,but its only recently they have added filters to exhausts to help cut this down,imo its a bit late,though they do say better late than never
|
True. Better they are not there in the first place though this health site appear to totally contradict the findings of the original posters link:
"Health effects of PM10
It is difficult to determine which health effects are due to PM10. No experimental evidence is available, all evidence is derived from epidemiological studies. Results from these studies tend to be difficult to interpret due to the fact that cold weather, associated infections and increases in PM10 concentrations occur simultaneously and the former two factors are known to cause ill health. Also environmental exposure measurements are difficult to relate to individual exposure."
So, a health authority can find nothing definite but UCLA can make the link in a diesel car free state.
|
|
Odd if diesels are penalised, petrol engines are exempted, and the death rate rises. However, some of the rise in mortality of the vulnerable (the elderly, those with heart conditions) has been linked to high air temps - not fumes! The other issue to bring to mind is that ultra-fines are quite difficult to capture whereas PM10 are weighable. So, as a researcher which do you choose? The hard analysis or the easy route? Diesel particles that are easy to weigh, or the smaller, ultrafine particles that come from DI petrol as well as DI diesel, but are much more difficult to quantify? There are concerns re particulates, but they arise from a number of sources including quartz, forest fires, rubber dust etc. In California, they don't arise from diesel cars. These are very few. But trucks, exempt from controls (including the 5.0 litre SUV diesels), contribute. But when diesel cars (not the exempt American trucks) are equipped with expensive particulate filters, as of 2008, will the mortality rate drop? No-one really knows.
|
>>No-one really knows.
Like global warming,its not been proved to be cars that cause it,but easier to blame it on if No-one really knows.
|
|
So does fat, but I'm certainly not going veggie..
|
The problem is that the air is cleaner now that has been probably since the 16th Century.
Road transport arising PM10 levels in the US are now lower than they were in the 1940s and UK urban levels have halved since measurements began in the 1970s.
Some measurements indicate that PM2.5 levels are roughly porportionate.
In 1993 diesel engines were in roughly 7% of all cars, but those cars in total produced in excess of 90% of the particulate emissions in all cars. Hence the much more stringent EuroIII and EuroIV emission standards
|
|
|
Most medical research is done by junior doctors making a name for themselves to get a consultant post. They don't care about the validity of their results.
So they can present any old rubbish without being laughed at and derided by their peers, and not actually damage their carreer prospects? Pah!
|
|
I haven't read any more than the BBC digest, but cell inflammation can be triggered by a number of foreign bodies, IIRC. Would have been more of a pointer if they had used other small particles, described whether they were inert or not, and explained why diesel was involved, as distinct from DI petrol engine fine particles. Maybe they did?
|
|
|
|
Who wantsto live for so long that "brain failure" and high dependency becomes their eventual outlook.
The Ayatollah reckons I got it now. Now where's my Gin?
MD
|
|
|
|
