The Diesel Stop banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here comes the EPA...

WASHINGTON (Sept. 3) - Diesel exhausts from large trucks and other sources probably cause lung cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded Tuesday in a report that buttresses a push to reduce truck emissions through stricter requirements for cleaner diesel fuel.

The EPA report concludes that uncertainties remain about long-term health effects of exposure to diesel exhausts. It said, however, that studies involving both tests on animals and occupational exposure suggest strong evidence of a cancer risk to humans.

``Overall, the evidence for a potential cancer hazard to humans resulting from chronic inhalation exposure to (diesel emissions) is persuasive,'' said the health impact report released by the EPA.

The report mirrors conclusions made previously in documents from various world health agencies and studies in California and is particularly significant because the EPA is the federal agency that regulates diesel emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Some environmentalists have expressed worries recently that the Bush administration might have been backing away from a Clinton-era regulation that would establish tougher requirements on emissions from large trucks and a separate rule that virtually would eliminate sulfur from diesel fuel.

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman repeatedly has promised to go ahead with the tougher diesel rules. Last month, with White House approval, the EPA rebuffed attempts by some diesel engine manufacturers to postpone the requirements, approving new penalties against manufacturers who fail to meet an October deadline for making cleaner-burning truck engines.

The engine rule does not effect emissions from trucks already on the road, although the separate regulation cutting the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel is expected to produce pollution reductions.

The EPA's 651-page diesel health assessment report had been awaited by environmentalists, health advocates and state air quality regulators who have been pushing for diesel emission reductions.

The report reiterated that environmental exposure to diesel exhausts poses ``a chronic respiratory hazard to humans'' in the long term including increased asthma and other respiratory problems. In some urban areas diesel exhausts account for as much as a quarter of the airborne microscopic soot, the report said.

As for cancer, the report noted occupational health studies and tests on animals that showed diesel emissions to be a carcinogen, a cancer-causing substance. While there remain uncertainties, the report continued, ``it is reasonable to presume that the hazard extends to environmental exposure levels'' as well.

``The overall evidence for potential human health effects of diesel exhausts is persuasive,'' the report said.

``This assessment concludes that (diesel exhaust) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation, and that this hazard applies to environmental exposure ... based on the totality of evidence from human, animal and other supporting studies,'' said the report.

Environmentalists welcomed the study as clear evidence that pollution needs to be curtailed not only from large trucks but also from off-road diesel-powered vehicles. EPA spokeswoman Steffanie Bell said the agency expects to publish a rule early next year dealing with those diesel exhaust sources, which include farm tractors and construction equipment.

Emily Figdor of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a private environmental organization, said: ``To reduce the public's exposure to harmful diesel emissions, the Bush administration should ... fully implement clean air standards for diesel trucks and buses and should pass equivalent standards for diesel construction and farm equipment.''

Figdor noted that the report is surfacing just as children across the country are returning to schools, many in diesel-powered buses. ``Children riding buses back to school ... need stronger protection against the health impacts of diesel exhaust,'' she said.

Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the industry group Diesel Technology Forum, said the EPA's report ``focused on the past,'' whereas ``the future is clean diesel: Diesel trucks and buses built today are more than eight times cleaner than just a dozen years ago.''
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,890 Posts
HERE is the article on MSN about this post..looks like I was late...!!! HELL,,,I guess EVERYTHING causes cancer!!!! /ubbthreads/images/icons/mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/crazy.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/shocked.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Yes petrol diesel exhaust is awful(and gasoline exhaust)!!! You can tell its definitely toxic from the smell. Please start to use cleaner fuels like vegetable oil or biodiesel. Who here wants lung cancer in 20 years, I don't! We could have our kids ride to school on bio-buses, or carcinogenic cancer-buses. Which would you choose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
There is the problem. "You can tell it's definitely toxic by the smell". That's the same flawed science that the EPA has used to justify their existance. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Well ThomC,
If you enjoy the smell of petrol diesel so much how bout you go sit in front of your exhaust for a while, might as well smoke a pack of cigarettes while your there. That will make you feel real good, then you'll wonder why you get cancer 20 years later. Diesel engines were first designed for fuels like vegetable oil! I'm sure you've heard of Rudolph Diesel!
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
reinschglass

You must drive a foreign gas powered truck. I only have one thing to say, I would rather breath diesel fumes over gas any day, at least I will live long enough to get cancer with diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Sorry jimmiee,
I don't have a signature with my vehicle list yet. I have a '89, FORD 350, 4x4, crew cab, DIESEL. Is that good enough for you? I love diesel engines, I just don't think we need to use petrol diesel fuel. Do you like to support foreign oil?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
My apologies,

I just think that the EPA has made some very bad choices of late and I for one and sick and tired of a very few people making choices for millions of people. Take the MTB problem we have here in California. They said they were saving our lives by adding the MTB to the fuel. #1 there was very little difference between before and after the additive. #2 and most important is that almost every where it has been used including here it has ruined the drinking water in all the local wells. So, to save us from a few smog particles they have single handed ruined the drinking water in most areas of the country were this additive is being used. Do you think they will pay a dime to clean up their multi-billion dollar mistake and pay for the cancer treatment for all the folks that will come down with cancer for drinking the water that is known to cause cancer? I think not. Bottom line I do not like incompetent govt folks making decisions for me or my family. But, as far as my last post to you I do apologize.
By the way I am not above using Crisco in my motor if it will do it as cheap and effective as diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
jimmiee, I agree with you about the EPA! The rich, "elite", world leaders sure have made some horrible decisions for their personal gain, and at the expense of us common folk. I have also heard about that MTB issue in California. When I do have to fill a GAS tank I try to get the 10%ethanol instead of MTB(when its avaliable).
Thanks,
Matthew

'89, FORD, 350, 4x4, crew cab, diesel
'84, International, school bus, diesel
'75, Ford, school bus, gaser
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top