Reply With QuoteThat explains the nervous twitch I've been having.
EPA: Long-term diesel exposure can cause cancer
September 4, 2002 Posted: 8:28 AM EDT (1228 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Inhaling diesel exhausts from large trucks and other sources over time can cause cancer in humans, an Environmental Protection Agency report concludes after a decade of study.
The EPA finding, released Tuesday, is expected to buttress the government's push to reduce truck tailpipe emissions by requiring cleaner-burning engines and diesel fuel with ultra-low sulfur content.
While acknowledging uncertainties about the long-term health effects of exposure to diesel exhausts, the EPA report said studies involving both animal tests and occupational exposure suggest strong evidence of a cancer risk to humans.
"It is reasonable to presume that the hazard extends to environmental exposure levels" as well, the report said. "The potential human health effects of diesel exhausts is persuasive, even though assumptions and uncertainties are involved."
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 raised concerns recently that the Bush administration might try to back 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 truck and 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 affect 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 did not attempt to estimate the probability of an individual getting cancer, given certain exposure to diesel exhaust. Such a risk assessment is commonly made by the EPA when gauging pollution health concerns.
But in this case, the report said, "the exposure-response data are considered too uncertain" to produce a confident quantitative estimate of cancer risk to an individual.
Nevertheless, said the report, the "totality of evidence from human, animal and other supporting studies" suggests that diesel exhaust "is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation, and that this hazard applies to environmental exposure."
The report reiterated that environmental exposure to diesel exhausts poses short-term health problems and in the long term has been shown to be a "chronic respiratory hazard to humans" contributing to 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.
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."
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."
The report acknowledged that its findings were based on emissions levels in the mid-1990s, but said the results continued to be valid because the slow turnover of truck engines has kept many of these vehicles on the road.
That explains the nervous twitch I've been having.
"While acknowledging uncertainties"..... "suggest strong evidence of a cancer risk"..... "It is reasonable to presume"..... "The potential human health effects"..... "assumptions and uncertainties are involved"..... "the exposure-response data are considered too uncertain"..... "is likely to be carcinogenic".....
What bullshit!! If this was a 10th grade science project it would deserve an "F". Nothing in the report points to any clearcut evidence of cancer risk, yet "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."
Anyone in California that votes for Davis, Boxer, or Feinstein is an idiot.
rrrr, you seem to be familier with Ca. politics. I think you should know we have the best politicans money can buy, and they aren't cheap either.
great! so much for bumper skiing behind the city buses!
Well,I'm screwed....
This just in:
Drinking water, breathing air or ingestion of food causes cancer, especially in California.
Dont forget to vote for Jordan for President, I mean King. Jordy for King. Yeah.
Jordy
Does anyone remember what the diesels used to put out 15 years ago? You could tell where a truck had been 2 miles ago just by looking at the smoke. Diesels run cleaner than ever before.
There are some AMAZING direct injection diesel engines available in the rest of the world right now. One by Volkswagon get better feul economy than ANY gas powered car iin the US. Did I mention that it is an EPA violation to import these engines?
One of the other boards I am on made a point that our system insures the legeslators can not understand technology, because younger people can not hold office. It is a valad point when you consider that most of congress writes hot checks more often than they operate a computer. Several congress wiesels have NEVER operated a computer... And we expect them to understand Direct Injection Diesel engines when most of them can not pronounce it? I need a drink...
Of course it's illegal to import a super clean diesel because if they did the EPA wouldn't be able to fine the hell out of Cummins,Cat and the rest for not meeting their ridiculous new engine standards!!Politicians think the term"Direct injection"means taking campaign contributions directly from the companies....So now diesel engines are supposed to be 95% cleaner by 2009 or else...funny that the EPA isn't cutting their budget by 95% and managing to get the same workload done..
Posting Permissions