CARB over regulation Diesel emmissions based on flawed science!
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 35
  1. #1
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    12,673

    Icon6 CARB over regulation Diesel emmissions based on flawed science!

    For those owners who have purchased a Diesel fueled vehicle for personal transport, then dismayed to find that some in our community have a fear and loathing to the point they flat out claim that such vehicles are dangerous to health due to the particulate emissions from diesel exhausts. This is for you.

    The demonisation of Diesel arose from California media reports citing CARB findings. Fortunately the “scientific” Research has been exposed as false, based on biased reports and fraudulent research.

    Unfortunately owners still get baited with taunts arising from that fraudulent work because media was slower to report the subsequent scandal exposed by another Professor at the University.

    Advertisement


    The University sacked the Professor who exposed not only the errors but the bias within the CARB processes and the lack of qualification of the main person who promoted the junk science reports condemning Diesel vehicles. The fraudulent "research" set the scene for draconian over regulation by CARB.

    What happened after the exposure was amazing, the contrast in the Universities treatment of the whistleblower and the perpetrator of this fraud is quite remarkable.

    Fortunately Justice might still prevail as a group has funded a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal – read all about it and make it known among other proud diesel owners.


    http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/lawsui...n-junk-science

    So rest easy Diesel owners you are not evil polluting diesel emitters!! just cite this link.

    Ken

  2. #2
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,283

    Default

    well i'll be

    we can't let haakon onto this, the arguements will never end
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x 2018 3008

    1 x 2000 Citroen XM,

    1 x '98 306 GTi6 sadly sold

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0

  3. #3
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    12,673

    Icon6 I wont argue, I don't use Diesel - no skin off my....

    Quote Originally Posted by pugrambo View Post
    well i'll be

    we can't let haakon onto this, the arguements will never end
    Ah yes, forgot Haakon has been a "little" outspoken, but fair enough if well informed, we all have an opinion, some more colourful than others!!

    Stop stirring the pot!!

    Ken

  4. #4
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    anywhere
    Posts
    2,477

    Default

    Forty years ago Soviet research published in New Scientist suggested diesel fumes were carcinogenic. I chose to ignore it as I spent a lot of time inhaling diesel fumes. Never saw anything more about it.

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts okalford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11,013

    Icon12 'WHO' said so

    It was in the news yesterday.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-1...ogenic/4068414

    Experts at the World Health Organisation (WHO) say diesel engine exhaust fumes can cause cancer in humans.

    They say they belong in the same potentially deadly category as asbestos, arsenic and mustard gas.

    After a week-long meeting, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reclassified diesel exhausts from its group of probable carcinogens, to its group of substances that have definite links to cancer.

    It says diesel emissions cause lung cancer and increase the risk of bladder cancer.

    They say their decision was unanimous and based on "compelling" scientific evidence.

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    18,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by okalford View Post
    Groundhog Day?
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  7. #7
    1000+ Posts okalford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    Groundhog Day?
    So your comment means? If that article was already posted, my apologies, I haven't seen it but I don't read every post here.

    The pollution that we care about from diesel - buses, trucks and other diesel engines - is technically called particulate matter. We all know it is soot. It's fine, fine particles that are small enough to get past our throat, past our lungs into the deepest part, the deepest of our lungs, where they trigger asthma attacks, bronchitis, emphysema, heart disease and now of course we've learned cancer.
    It makes sense to me. Ken reckons the claims are based on 'biased reports and fraudulent research' but given a choice, I'd prefer fresh clean air any day!

    K

  8. #8
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by okalford View Post
    So your comment means? If that article was already posted, my apologies, I haven't seen it but I don't read every post here.



    It makes sense to me. Ken reckons the claims are based on 'biased reports and fraudulent research' but given a choice, I'd prefer fresh clean air any day!

    K
    There's no doubt diesel exhausts are toxic..... Show me the emissions from any exhaust stack that aren't.......... The buses here in town .... blow black soot ??? You gotta be kidding me, most of the ancient diesels the blow clouds of soot and gone from the roads. Watch trucks for example going up the pentland mountain range (or even up the westgate) under full load conditions.... You won't see a whiff of soot or black smoke (that stuff is unburnt fuel, so money heading straight out the exhaust pipe for a commercial operator). Sure there still blowing toxic shit out, but would it be worse than a petrol engine consuming 4times the fuel to produce less pulling power

    It must be a slow news day for them to be publishing old news that belongs 20years back in history.

    seeya,
    shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/citro%EBn-forum/90325-best-project-car-you-have-ever-seen.html
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  9. #9
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    18,563

    Default

    As I think I said before, if you get enough of anything, you'll die. The highly publicised findings of this elite group of however many un-named scientists put before us an amazing fact. Diesel emissions are cancer causing. So, apparently is just about everything else we come into contact with on a daily basis and this is another one!. There appears to be no qualification of the likelihood of a person getting cancer from this cause. What is the rate of diesel induced cancer? Is it higher or lower that cigarette smoking? Who were the control group? How many cases of diesel induced cancer were actually studied in this research? Are there in fact any verifiable figures pointing to this cause actually being of concern to the general public or is it yet another excercise in justifying the existence of the extremely well paid contributors to this apparently rather loose piece of scuttlebutt?
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  10. #10
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    2,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    Groundhog Day?
    Quote Originally Posted by okalford View Post
    So your comment means? If that article was already posted, my apologies, I haven't seen it but I don't read every post here.
    ...

    K

    Kay I don't think the comment was critical of you or your post. I believe Kim's comment related to Russel Hall's post - the Soviets reported the problem 40 years ago, and now WHO reports it as something new

    Cheers

    Alec

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts okalford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Armidillo View Post
    I believe Kim's comment related to Russel Hall's post - the Soviets reported the problem 40 years ago, and now WHO reports it as something new

    Cheers

    Alec
    Thanks, Alec it wasn't so clear to me. When I heard the news of the report I didn't think it was something new but perhaps better researched than it had been in the past. But admittedly I was a bit surprised to be hearing it now, in 2012.

    Anyway, I'll continue to hold my breath if I I'm in the wind of any black and stinky diesel exhaust. Fortunately I don't see that as much these days as I used to.

    K

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts 504-504-504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Far North Queensland
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    lets not forget the particulate filters fitted to modern Peugeot diesels and no doubt to other brands.

    Paul

    “A straight is merely the distance between two corners.”

    “Corners: radar free zones.”

    Current: Peugeot 205 GTi Mi16 1987
    Peugeot 205 Si, one red one silver, both 1991.
    Peugeot 504 Wagon, V6 and 5 speed gearbox.
    Isuzu (Holden) Rodeo, 4WD dual cab, extended chassis.
    Past: Goliath, Isuzu Bellett, Austin A30, Peugeot 203, 403, 404, 504,505.
    Subaru 4WD wagon, Toyota Hilux Dual Cab Diesel 4WD.

    Makotrac 205 GTi 06-05-2012 best lap 1 min 20 sec.

  13. #13
    UFO
    UFO is offline
    Citroën Tragic UFO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Gerringong, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    9,814

    Default

    And benzene fumes from petrol can be used as personal fragrance......
    Craig K
    2009 C5 HDi Exclusive

  14. #14
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    12,673

    Icon6 Its a report on which a court will find on the evidence presented I guess.

    Actually reading the article Kaye posted, you get the impression that a lot of guesswork went into the make-up of the claim quite a bit of wriggle room. Almost reminds me of some other grand claims of "consensus", "everyone knows" - "experts say".

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is interesting from the point of view that the law suit will effectively open up the whole issue of claim and counter claim and examine the value of the Professors exposure of the faulty research and how the claimed bias impacted on the basis for the higher regulation imposed by CARB.

    The WHO report would need to cite actual papers, so that the claims can be checked by other scientists. who knows they may be quoting the reports produced for CARB

    I also agree that most anything can effect a persons health if they are sensitive to that product or process and cancer may result, or manifest itself at some time in a persons life. Some people have amazing immune systems and have no reaction.

    Early exposure at a young age to pollutants/allegens might also promote strong immune protection and there is research going on to that effect. its a moot point if you would deliberately expose children in the hope of building a higher degree of immunity later in life.

    Maybe the court case might get some definitive answers. Worth following.

    Ken

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    i posted a full account of the story Kaye is referring to, on the day of release, here:
    http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/sho...59#post1071159

    the point of it was not a revelation that diesel fumes are not good to breath, but rather that WHO has changed its status from probably carcinogenic to definitiely carcinogenic. it is not research in itself; it is the determination of a group which (as i understand it) reviews research on the subject of cancer.

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    2,810

    Default What the ???

    Hi,
    I am puzzled reading this thread? What is being argued ??

    Is the claim; diesels are not polluting and the fumes are not dangerous, just because some fools said some suspect claims. Don't worry because the scientists are all idiots.

    Or should we take a wider view and say responsible manufacturers liike PSA and VW and lots of others have worked hard on technology to reduce the particulates and the combustion process to make them better, because they believe there are some problems with diesels. Not just because they need to pass a standard, no matter how dodgy the science, but because they believe they need to improve them for the future??
    jaahn

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    Apparently your first thought is correct...ie because an academic in the US was possibly wrongfully dismissed for disputing research which said diesel fumes ate dangerous, therefore all research in the world which says that must therefore be bogus. Completely understandable argument if you ask me
    Last edited by alexander; 16th June 2012 at 10:01 PM.

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    18,563

    Default

    I'd say, quite positively, if asked whether I believe diesel emissions are capable of causing cancer: Yes.

    What I would like to know is, and apparently there is no research being touted by anyone on this forum as conclusive proof we're all going to die of this hideous vapour, what is the likelihood of contracting cancer from this cause?

    Stony silence. With the possible exception of the only person I know who knows everything.....
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  19. #19
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    12,673

    Icon10 Believe what you will, its a free country!!

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    Apparently your first thought is correct...ie because an academic in the US was possibly wrongfully dismissed for disputing research which said diesel fumes ate dangerous, therefore all research in the world which says that must therefore be bogus. Completely understandable argument if you ask me
    Excelled in your misrepresentation there alexander, but par for the course. quite a strawman or was it a in fishing parlance a red herring. You had a better argument with the WHO pronouncement - of the likely situation that experts said so.

    We can all say so, like Kim says, but nice to get the data and consider if regulating todays diesel use, that other experts say is low in particulate with the diesel of 40 years ago, might be a bit silly. Still if the experts say......

    I think I will just wait and see the outcome of the CARB situation, let the courts find the truth, seems the "experts" on both sides contradict each other. The interesting part will be if they can establish if the University stood to gain financially from the bad science and was protecting its grant money bin. The case may well turn on that issue.

    Meanwhile owners will still drive ......diesels even if they pay through the nose to fill the tanks...



    Ken

  20. #20
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    12,673

    Icon10 You kind of "convict" yourself alex.... foot in mouth...

    Glad you have now read the link, thats not the only comment on the web of course. It does pay to read links before commenting !! I think there is another interested party waiting in the wings so lets wait and see.



    Anyway here is some more re the case to be pursued - on the face of it, interesting.

    The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles alleges the school violated Enstrom’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments.

    Enstrom’s Ph.D. from Stanford is in physics. He’s worked in the university system for more than 30 years. His difficulties started after his peer-reviewed inhalation toxicology report titled “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and total Mortality Among Elderly Californians 1973-2002,” the claim explains.

    That study “found no relationship between PM2.5 (particulate matter) and total mortality in California,” the lawsuit said.

    His finding contradicted the opinions of “several senior … faculty members. [Environmental Health Sciences] chair Jackson, EHS professors John Froines and Aurthur Winer, epidemiology and EHS professor Bente Ritz, and Dean Rosenstock have all publicly supported the widely popular – though scientifically unfounded – argument that diesel particulate matter and/or PM2.5 results in increased mortality risks for California citizens.”

    Enstrom then contradicted the other researchers in testimony to the state legislature and further exposed the fraudulent credentials of Hien T. Tran, “a key CARB scientist and lead author of the October 24, 2008 CARB report on PM2.5 and premature death.

    Mr. Tran’s research report served as the primary public health justification for a new diesel vehicle regulatory scheme approved by CARB … Dr. Enstrom’s statements brought to light that Mr. Tran’s Ph.D. was not awarded by the University of California at Davis as Tran claimed. Mr. Tran subsequently admitted that he purchased his Ph.D. at a cost of $1,000 from ‘Thornhill University,’ a fake institution and Internet diploma mill based at a UPS store in New York.”

    The complaint also asserted that members of a university committee had been serving indefinite terms, in violation of state rules limiting terms to three years.

    He also discovered that, as a researcher whose compensation was paid entirely by grants and other resources he acquired for the university, the funding management had been changed and his salary could not be met. Also, his grant funds were charged for an on-campus office, when UCLA’s only space allocated to him was a .4-cubic foot mailbox.

    Then came the termination notice, based on university statements that his funds, which he generated but the university administered, were depleted.

    University officials released a statement to WND saying they dispute the allegations.

    “UCLA zealously protects the intellectual independence of members of our academic community and has long maintained that Enstrom’s political and scientific views and outside activities were not considered during his reappointment process,” the statement said.

    The university said it used appropriate procedures in dealing with Enstrom.

    But a letter to Enstrom from the university’s associate dean for academic programs, Hilary Godwin, noted, “Please be advised that you will not be reappointed Aug. 30, 2010. As previously notified, the reason for non-reappointment is the faculty of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences has determined your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the department.”
    The "dirt" in all this has an element of being lead by the grant system designed for the purpose to make particular particulate findings - to aid regulation. But will be interesting to see what the court finds....
    Last edited by Kenfuego; 17th June 2012 at 10:30 PM.

  21. #21
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,876

    Default

    Besides, they just stink. Stuck behind a new VW Transporter yesterday, nasty. Change lanes, made sure recycle was on of I had to be behind him again...

    Antisocial pricks...

  22. #22
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    18,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    Besides, they just stink. Stuck behind a new VW Transporter yesterday, nasty. Change lanes, made sure recycle was on of I had to be behind him again...

    Antisocial pricks...
    Enjoy the smells whilst you can, Cyrano de Bergerac! My hooter can't smell anything anymore! I think it got clogged up by driving in petrol powered city traffic for fifty years! I dream of being able to have a nice whiff of diesel fumes. Or Castrol R, or anything really.
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone............

  23. #23
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    Besides, they just stink. Stuck behind a new VW Transporter yesterday, nasty. Change lanes, made sure recycle was on of I had to be behind him again...

    Antisocial pricks...
    The only cars I notice stink are old unleaded ones..... I think you'd smell diesel even if you nose was 100% blocked

    It does make we want to find an old CX N./A so I can sit infront of you uphills blowing clouds of unburnt fuel out the back though
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  24. #24
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,876

    Default

    Seiously - do I have a super nose? This cannot be true for someone who loved their Styuvos for years and could steer the Rover with his knee perfectly whilst using its very handy flat dash top for on the go rollies?

    The lighter in that car was awesome - took ages to heat up (Lucas of course) but it was perfectly timed for rollies

    You have to have serious problems (yes, Shane but yours are "special") to not notice the diesel in traffic...

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    the answer is Yes you must have a supernose.
    personally, in driving around in traffic these days, i am rarely aware of fumes either by smell or sight. which is hardly surprising, given that all those world wide regulations about emissions are not just play acting. particularly i am not aware of ever seeing visible emissions from new diesel cars.

    as for the cancer aspect, it is far from clear if there is any issue of significance.

    have a look here, for instance:
    http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerin...skfactors.aspx

    causes of cancer listed as:
    Smoking
    Radon gas
    Age
    Genetic risk
    Asbestos
    Past cancer treatment
    Other causes

    obviously diesel fumes are in the "other" category. about which it says, and which makes strong intuitive sense: "Air pollution has been suggested as a cause of lung cancer, but this is difficult to prove."

    or here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer

    where is says, of Outdoor Air Pollution: Outdoor air pollution has a small effect on increasing the risk of lung cancer.[3] Fine particulates (PM2.5) and sulfate aerosols, which may be released in traffic exhaust fumes, are associated with slightly increased risk.[3][36] For nitrogen dioxide, an incremental increase of 10 parts per billion increases the risk of lung cancer by 14%.[37] Outdoor air pollution is estimated to account for 1–2% of lung cancers.[3]"

    that is ALL outdoor air pollution. so focussing on the portion of that 1-2% caused by diesel fumes, is dwelling on something barely of any significance to one's life, if at all, and even then unlikely known with any useful certainty. correct me if otherwise, but NO2 is an emission of petrol engines? further, that would no doubt be estimated from the past data, and obviously modern diesels put out much less of everything due very recent and far more stringent emissions regulation.

    conclusion: highly unlikely that fumes from current diesel motor vehicles will cause lung cancer at a level worthy of consideration. while i dont doubt the official pronouncement that diesel fumes are carcinogenic, that only means at some level of exposure, and in no way necessarily means that level of exposure occurs in day to day life.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •