Killer Diesel?
We had a news item last week that wasn’t top of the pile and only appeared on one day, so obviously wasn’t important. It would seem that diesel exhaust fumes can kill in some cases and are bad for your health anyway.
Diesel fumes appear to combine with artery-clogging fats to raise the risk of heart disease, research suggests.
Scientists found the two act in concert to switch on genes that cause potentially dangerous inflammation of the blood vessels.
They hope their work will lead to a simple blood test enabling doctors to evaluate the impact of air pollution on a person’s health.
The UCLA study appears in the on-line journal Genome Biology.
Lead researcher Dr André Nel, an expert in nano-medicine, said the impact of diesel particles and cholesterol fats combined was much greater than the impact of each in isolation.
He said:
“Their combination creates a dangerous synergy that wreaks cardiovascular havoc far beyond what’s caused by the diesel or cholesterol alone.”
“Exactly how air pollutants cause cardiovascular injury is poorly understood.”
“But we do know that these particles are coated with chemicals that damage tissue and cause inflammation of the nose and lungs.”
“Vascular inflammation in turn leads to cholesterol deposits and clogged arteries, which can give rise to blood clots that trigger heart attack or stroke.”
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.”
“But, anyone with chronic lung disease or coronary heart disease should avoid staying outside for long periods when pollution levels are high.”
Now we have known for some time that the particulates in diesel exhaust fumes can aggravate asthma and even cause it in young children and older people. Despite this mothers (and fathers) insist on driving their kids to school every day in their bloody great 4×4s. I’ve always considered this to be irresponsible on their part but I’ve also found that drivers of either sex rarely listen to advice.
These fumes are being pumped out by the tonne every minute of every hour of every day all around the planet and have been for several decades now. I don’t want to go into the “global warning” scenario here as that isn’t the point of this article.
What I will say is that many of us are now subject to a smoking ban in (enclosed) public spaces because “passive smoking” can cause heart and lung disease. I wonder how many people over the last few decades have had their heart disease or even death from heart disease blamed on smoking or passive smoking when, in actual fact, it has been caused by exposure to diesel exhaust fumes? A good question methinks!
Maybe we are concentrating on the wrong things when it comes to protecting public health. Maybe we should be banning the use of diesel fuel. Of course such a thing would never happen because the big boys who hold all the power on this planet wouldn’t allow such a ban. It would eat into their vast money supply a bit too much wouldn’t it?
I look forward to seeing more results from this research, assuming that is, that the big boys allow it to continue or maybe they will just keep the results a secret.
Comments ( 5 )
Hi, Stuart!
well, my comment is not about this subject… I just wanted to say that I am DYING to use this picture at the top of the page in my site. why are you so fabulous?
Well it isn’t my image so carry on. I should warn you that it is a composite to add extra stretchiness.
I have never read such propaganda before. You need to look for another excuse to not use diesel as a fuel. Have you ever been behind a gas engine’s exhaust? Do you realize that a diesel engine is less of a pollutant than a similar gas engine? Diesels get on average 20% better mileage than a comparable gas engine. I hope that you don’t even bring up hydrogen either because most people can’t spend $80,000 on a car. Electricity would be great if the drive is short ,but not practical for long drives. What fuel produces the electricity to power a car anyway?
Hi Jon. The point I’m making isn’t which fuel is less of a pollutant, it’s the fact that diesel damages people and this has been known for years, yet we concentrate our efforts on banning smoking in public places because it damages people, including those who don’t smoke. I don’t drive. Why should I be damaged by those who do? Why should anybody?
As for less polluting fuels why bother wasting the money on research? To be perfectly frank the vast majority of people who have cars don’t need them so let’s get rid of them. That’s the best answer, both for people and the planet. And NO. I’m not some anti-car fanatic but the truth is the truth.
The most harmful effect of the CO2 paranoia is that it is causing more and more uninformed car buyers to change to filthy diesel engined cars. The carcinogenic particles and fumes omitted by diesels are a far greater health risk than the unproven effects of CO2 emissions – the majority of which are created by industry, power stations, aviation, etc. The dangerous effects of diesel fumes are already proven by medical research. Try following a diesel engined car that has just been given full acceleration in a low gear and watch the fog of grey/black cancer forming particles nicely positioned to join you in your car – having just blown in through your ventilation system. It is difficult to get proper support in this matter because of the large number of car buyers who have now been hoodwinked into buying diesel models. Get rid of them now – before they become valueless!