5 ms·

No shortage of sources. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel.html https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel... http

No shortage of sources. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel.html https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel... https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Diesel_Health_America.pdf https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Dies... https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly.

giantg2 5y ago
"That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly." Not saying it's not bad, but this equivocation is just not accurate in my view. More deaths sure - because more people were exposed. Can you honestly tell me you would rather be exposed to asbestos or lead (no ppe)? Also, emissions controls have increased as has air quality since the 80s. I doubt this idea that the data still has lag left in it. We would expect to see the most impact at the higher exposure levels.
- Spivak 5y ago
  You’re missing the individual vs societal view. Obviously you personally would rather not be exposed to asbestos or lead but at the societal level 1000 people that are really really dead and 1000 people who are just normally dead aren’t that different. And honestly it’s worse for diesel having wide exposure because there are in between states between totally fine and dead and those affect more people.
  - necovek 5y ago
    But that wasn't the grandparent thread question where someone asked for sources on exhaust gasses being as dangerous as asbestos/lead? We all know that car accidents are one of the top killers in the world, yet we don't ban cars outright. But that's because absolute numbers are big simply because billions of people drive cars: on a per-trip basis, they are actually not that bad.
- jahewson 5y ago
  The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely. The question was not which dosages of which chemicals would be more harmful for a short term exposure. That’s not relevant to answering the above question. In fact it likely has a different answer. (For lag I’m referring to the lead/asbestos data. Exposure to these has been on the decline for decades but we’re still seeing deaths due to exposures 40 years ago), so they presumably cause an outsize number of deaths per year currently).
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely." If you mean by perception only, then sure. These three things have existed together for a long time. If you eliminate the two more dangerous ones, then the remaining less dangerous/acute one will be next in priority and get the attention.
    - jahewson 5y ago
      No, as noted and cited, the absolute numbers for diesel are worse than those for lead. That’s not perception, it’s fact. And we’ve absolutely not eliminated the other two because they still exist in the environment and everyone ever poisoned by them who is currently still alive is yet to appear in the death statistics, hence the lag.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        That's gross numbers. How about rate? Again, tell me you'd rather be exposed to lead or asbestos.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  What does being exposed mean? Being around asbestos and lead in its normal use is completely safe. People live in asbestos buildings without issues. There is no standard dosage of asbestos but if you count grinding it up and huffing the dust then it would only be fair to compare to standing in a garage of exhaust fumes which will kill you within minutes.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's not true either. We're talking about normal use. You can stand near an engine thats not running, just like you can live in a building with asbestos or lead. How about lead pipes, that's normal use and exposure at one point in time. Asbestos used to be much more common than it is today, with no idea that it was dangerous. People would commonly come into contact with it when remodeling. In any case, under normal conditions, nobody is going to choose realilistic exposure levels of lead or asbestos over ambient diesel fumes.

giantg2 5y ago

"That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly." Not saying it's not bad, but this equivocation is just not accurate in my view. More deaths sure - because more people were exposed. Can you honestly tell me you would rather be exposed to asbestos or lead (no ppe)? Also, emissions controls have increased as has air quality since the 80s. I doubt this idea that the data still has lag left in it. We would expect to see the most impact at the higher exposure levels.

Spivak 5y ago
You’re missing the individual vs societal view. Obviously you personally would rather not be exposed to asbestos or lead but at the societal level 1000 people that are really really dead and 1000 people who are just normally dead aren’t that different. And honestly it’s worse for diesel having wide exposure because there are in between states between totally fine and dead and those affect more people.
- necovek 5y ago
  But that wasn't the grandparent thread question where someone asked for sources on exhaust gasses being as dangerous as asbestos/lead? We all know that car accidents are one of the top killers in the world, yet we don't ban cars outright. But that's because absolute numbers are big simply because billions of people drive cars: on a per-trip basis, they are actually not that bad.
jahewson 5y ago
The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely. The question was not which dosages of which chemicals would be more harmful for a short term exposure. That’s not relevant to answering the above question. In fact it likely has a different answer. (For lag I’m referring to the lead/asbestos data. Exposure to these has been on the decline for decades but we’re still seeing deaths due to exposures 40 years ago), so they presumably cause an outsize number of deaths per year currently).
- giantg2 5y ago
  "The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely." If you mean by perception only, then sure. These three things have existed together for a long time. If you eliminate the two more dangerous ones, then the remaining less dangerous/acute one will be next in priority and get the attention.
  - jahewson 5y ago
    No, as noted and cited, the absolute numbers for diesel are worse than those for lead. That’s not perception, it’s fact. And we’ve absolutely not eliminated the other two because they still exist in the environment and everyone ever poisoned by them who is currently still alive is yet to appear in the death statistics, hence the lag.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That's gross numbers. How about rate? Again, tell me you'd rather be exposed to lead or asbestos.
Gigachad 5y ago
What does being exposed mean? Being around asbestos and lead in its normal use is completely safe. People live in asbestos buildings without issues. There is no standard dosage of asbestos but if you count grinding it up and huffing the dust then it would only be fair to compare to standing in a garage of exhaust fumes which will kill you within minutes.
- giantg2 5y ago
  That's not true either. We're talking about normal use. You can stand near an engine thats not running, just like you can live in a building with asbestos or lead. How about lead pipes, that's normal use and exposure at one point in time. Asbestos used to be much more common than it is today, with no idea that it was dangerous. People would commonly come into contact with it when remodeling. In any case, under normal conditions, nobody is going to choose realilistic exposure levels of lead or asbestos over ambient diesel fumes.