Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Legal Fight, NCI Researchers Publish Study Linking Diesel Exhaust, Cancer

Posted by timothy on from the the-truth-will-out dept.

ananyo writes "A landmark study involving U.S. miners that links cancer rates to diesel fume exposure has been published after a seventeen-year legal battle with an industry group. A February 27 Slashdot story had reported that lawyers for the mining industry had sent threatening letters to scientific journals advising them against publishing the study. Initiated in 1998, after the first of many legal delays, the study analyzed exposures in detail for more than 12,000 workers while controlling for smoking and other risk factors. In the end, the scientists found that miners faced a threefold risk of lethal lung cancer, and underground workers who were heavily exposed to diesel fumes faced a fivefold risk. The two concluding papers from the study are available in full."

47 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Emissions by rullywowr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I always wondered why many states require passenger cars to pass through strict emissions tests, however it is perfectly OK to have trains, dump trucks, buses, and large vehicles spew columns of dark black diesel exhaust into the sky....

    oh yeah...FIRST!

    1. Re:Emissions by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I always wondered why many states require passenger cars to pass through strict emissions tests, however it is perfectly OK to have trains, dump trucks, buses, and large vehicles spew columns of dark black diesel exhaust into the sky....

      As the short answer to that, well-maintained big diesel engines have a useful lifetime measured in millions of miles. Decades of use.

      Believe it or not, (most) emissions rules do apply to those vile soot-belchers (at least, the non-road ones); It will just take literally 50 years to cycle through the worst-of-the-worst currently in service.

    2. Re:Emissions by Skater · · Score: 5, Informative

      I always wondered why many states require passenger cars to pass through strict emissions tests, however it is perfectly OK to have trains, dump trucks, buses, and large vehicles spew columns of dark black diesel exhaust into the sky.... As the short answer to that, well-maintained big diesel engines have a useful lifetime measured in millions of miles. Decades of use. Believe it or not, (most) emissions rules do apply to those vile soot-belchers (at least, the non-road ones); It will just take literally 50 years to cycle through the worst-of-the-worst currently in service.

      Yes, and the standards are getting more stringent. I think the most strict rules go into effect in 2015, and at that point the railroad engines will require DEF to meet the emissions standards, unless someone comes up with something amazing between now and then.

      Your other point is right on target, too - old locomotives are often rebuilt and reused, which is probably better for the environment than building a new one would be, even if the new one is more fuel efficient or runs cleaner. There are locomotives in service from manufacturers that have been out of business for 40 years.

    3. Re:Emissions by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the UK there's a low emissions zone around the capital that prevents the worst offenders from entering. or they have to pay, or something. Can't remember exactly but it's there!

      You pay £100 per day for vans (or van-based vehicles, so some cars count too) if they aren't quite new. It's a pretty stupid law - it doesn't get the polluting vehicles off the road, it simply pushes them outside of London. Meanwhile it encourages Londoners to buy brand new vehicles, which is arguably worse for the environment anyway.

      Then again, the government can't usually be accused of any kind of sensible thinking - in 2009 the UK government introduced a scrappage incentive to encourage people to scrap cars over 10 years old. This scheme was launched under the guise of helping the environment and the British economy. The result: lots of perfectly good cars scrapped and new ones purchased (the environmental cost of a new car far outweighs the cost of running a 10 year old car for a few more years until it really meets it's end of life). Meanwhile, since the UK car manufacturing industry is practically non-existent, this didn't really help the british economy, it simply ended up with foreign industry being subsidised by British tax money.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    4. Re:Emissions by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      The dark black stuff is more unburned diesel than diesel exhaust. You don't see that stuff from a properly set up diesel engine (look at the exhaust from a modern diesel ship like a cruise liner - it looks like less than what comes out of those old trucks). On some modern diesels you can't see anything coming out of the exhaust at all, just like a gasoline car.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Emissions by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Industry clout. The public have no lobbies which matter.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Emissions by Pope · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like a ninja?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    7. Re:Emissions by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      As for the emissions of a gasoline engine. Those emissions are much higher, and much more deadly.

      Not any more - diesels produce vastly more particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

    8. Re:Emissions by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Diesel vehicles suck ass... there's just no way to spin it.

      #2 diesel fuel sucks ass. Diesels are fine, provided they're running properly. Even my antique IDI diesel only smokes when it's cold, or when I shove my foot way up in it up a hill. Put a carbon-neutral fuel without toxic additiives in it into it, which I do when it's convenient, and it's fine. We The People paid for the development of this technology at Sandia NREL in the 1980s and their conclusion was that it would be profitable by the time the street price of diesel hit $3/gallon. Biodiesel has higher NO emissions but reduced everything else. Meanwhile, gasoline is some of the nastiest shit around, gasoline vehicles tend to spew it out of the tailpipe pretty liberally when cold, and gasoline vehicles run rich some of the time as part of their normal operation, while diesels nearly always run lean during their normal operation (except while wide open and under load.) And the smog equipment on gasoline vehicles wears out, too, and typically people don't get it repaired until they are constitutionally required to do so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Emissions by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Yes, and as I pointed out, those problems will be flagged at the semiannual emissions inspection that's required of passenger cars, but (apparently) not diesel trucks.

      In california diesels become responsible for smog again from MY1996 or 1997, not sure which, when they started actually including DPFs. Before then there really wasn't any smog equipment you could put on a diesel. Mind you, I drive diesels, but I have called a diesel in for being a gross polluter. I was behind it and could barely breathe because it was running so rich and spewing out so much HC. Probably had damaged and thus dripping injectors. Most people won't drive a diesel in this condition, because you get shitty mileage and it destroys the engine.

      In fact, IDI diesels are pretty clean because they tend to have at least 21:1 compression, while DI diesels might be as low as 17:1. The old twincharged diesels might have static compression even lower, but they have a supercharger to effectively raise static compression and a turbocharger to bring on the power in the high range. On a dyno chart my truck's power drops off sharply after 70 mph due to power range and gearing. That's fine; I never drive it any faster than that due to drag.

      SOME assholes, however, DO tune their vehicles to "roll coal", which means to blow more smoke. Powerstroke tuners even used to offer a smoke tune which would intentionally overinject fuel when wide open to produce more of it. This, however, costs fuel and power and leads to unwanted attention. I participate in a Ford diesel forum and when someone comes around asking how to do this we flame him hard.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Sue the lawyers by kirthn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sue the lawyers and Industrie group frorn endangering , and having knowledge of potetial dangerous effects...and delaying that for decades...how many more victims were added because of their frivolous behaviour

    --
    Famous last words:"but...."
    1. Re:Sue the lawyers by glop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't do that. At the time they were postponing publication of the research there was no published scientific research that showed the danger of exposure to Diesel exhausts.
      So basically, they were acting in good faith and just bringing healthy debate to this issue.

      Now, where's that "sarcasm mark" key already?

    2. Re:Sue the lawyers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      An efficient, if extralegal, approach might be to deliver the news of the results and coverup and then politely turn ones back and whistle innocently in order to allow the exposed miners and the coverers-up to enjoy a frank exchange of views in private.

      Providing pickaxe handles is optional; but should speed the matter up.

    3. Re:Sue the lawyers by gewalker · · Score: 2

      I was an design engineer at Cummins in the late 70's, did some emissions work there. They were concerned about cancer from diesel exhaust back then. So was the EPA. It was not considered proven science, but the consensus in was that the EPA was going to start regulating the particulates before too long. I can understand Cummins preferring the ostrich approach, but I would have thought the EPA would be a bit more active re: this. In reality, Cummins was not opposed the regulation in this area at the time, because they figured they were ahead of the competition in emissions control.

  3. Oh look... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The American legal system again. Where lawsuits let people die while feeding corps and trolls. Way to go "America"...

  4. How... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How could those lawyers live with themselves? What rationalizing did they have to twist their minds with to keep the pretense of humanity?

    1. Re:How... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe their rationalization is "screw the rules, I have money".

    2. Re:How... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I'm just doing my job" is the standard rationalization.

    3. Re:How... by dougisfunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're overestimating humanity.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    4. Re:How... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Everyone's got a mortgage to pay. [inner monologue] The Yuppie Nuremberg defense."

      If you like the lawyers, you'll love the twisted mentats who establish and staff what is politely referred to as 'Product Defense Industry'. This curious little world delivers opposing evidence, scientific controversy, 'independent' toxicology/epidemiology, and whatever else might be needed to support your lawyers in their battle against whoever is accusing your benevolent product of causing cancer in orphans or whatever...

      If ever the body of scientific evidence turns against you, these brave mercenaries of the laboratory can deliver enough doubt to buy years, potentially decades, of further freedom to operate!

    5. Re:How... by stjobe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rationalizing is easy.
      "I deserve this".
      "It's only a job".
      "I was only following orders".
      "Everybody else does it".
      "Nobody will know".
      "Nobody will care".
      "It's not against the law".
      et cetera.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    6. Re:How... by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suspect everyone, except maybe some true psychopaths, eventually feels the need to find a way to excuse their behavior as morally commendable, or at least permissible.

      I think you've hit the nail on the head already. People with psychopathic tendencies are more prevalent than you might think, and they tend to rise quickly within corporate structures if they're highly functioning. Morals are a liability for these people and they do what they can to suppress them if they do have them.

    7. Re:How... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lawyers have always been hated. From a book written in 100 AD and translated to English in 1400 AD:

      Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

      Poor lawyers... they have it rough. I wouldn't be one.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    8. Re:How... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the best rationalization of all: "if I don't do it, the next guy will, anyways. So the outcome will be the same, except I'll be the loser." And it's often true. It's the main reason why the world really does need ugly things like regulations.

    9. Re:How... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Only a minority of people gives even the slightest care to being moral. That's exactly why we invest enormously in police and legal systems, because it's the only way to put the brakes on the avarice that rules most people.

      No. We invest in police and military and other forms of state force because it's the only way to preserve the privilege of the sociopaths on the top of the heap. In order to convince us that that all this privilege-protecting infrastructure is necessary, the aristocracy directs a great deal of its energy into getting the rest of us to fear and hate each other, to believe that the only thing keeping most of our neighbors from slitting our throats is the guns of cops and soldiers.

      As Steinbeck put it,

      Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two squatting men apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other. Here is the anlarge of the thing you fear. This is the zygote. For here "I lost my land" is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate--"We lost our land." The danger is here, for two men are not as lonely and perplexed as one. And from this first "we" there grows a still more dangerous thing: "I have a little food" plus "I have none." If from this problem the sum is "We have a little food," the thing is on its way, the movement has direction. Only a little multiplication now, and this land, this tractor are ours. The two men squatting in a ditch, the little fire, the side- meat stewing in a single pot, the silent, stone-eyed women; behind, the children listening with their souls to words their minds do not understand. The night draws down. The baby has a cold. Here, take this blanket. It's wool. It was my mother's blanket--take it for the baby. This is the thing to bomb. This is the beginning--from "I" to "we."

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  5. Industry group bullies by wizzor · · Score: 2

    I find it sad that this is the state of scientific community. I wonder how many scientific studies are left unpublished because it's in someone's best interest to prevent their publication? I know there are methods to detect publication bias through various means, such as funnel plotting, and would imagine medical technology is a field where the practice of selective publication is fairly common. For an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_meta-analysis

  6. "Heavily exposed" by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Informative
    In fact, most developed countries outside the US, and some states inside, have strict rules on Diesel exhausts. Possibly over-strict given the relative lack of control of gasoline emissions from hot gas-powered trucks.But these people were being heavily exposed. When I worked in Diesel R&D, the engine test cells were carefully extracted and exposure to exhaust was very restricted. And for years many heavy vehicle workshops have tubing to remove exhaust fumes safely. The engine room ventilation systems on motor ships ensure that not only exhaust, but also under-piston and oil fumes, never go near engineering staff.

    You could say that perhaps the industries with perhaps the greatest in-depth knowledge of these engines have taken the greatest precautions against long term exposure of staff.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:"Heavily exposed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could say that perhaps the industries with perhaps the greatest in-depth knowledge of these engines have taken the greatest precautions against long term exposure of staff.

      Or you could also say that well trained and educated people are valuable employees and are well protected, while miners are to this day still treated as disposable. Maybe I'm more bitter than you, but I think we're both right.

    2. Re:"Heavily exposed" by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Or you could also say that well trained and educated people are valuable employees and are well protected, while miners are to this day still treated as disposable.

      Not everywhere.

      "The Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 include specific provisions for the operation of diesel engined units in underground mines. Included in these provisions is a requirement to have turbo charged units, and all units rated at 125KW or more, fitted with exhaust treatment devices. The most widely used treatment devices, are catalytic converters in conjunction with ceramic particulate filters."
      J M Torlach
      STATE MINING ENGINEER

      http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/6713.aspx
      http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/Pamphlets/MSH_Poster_ControllingDieselParticulateMatterInUndergroundMines.pdf

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  7. Well, that should silence the pro-diesel fumers by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, was there anyone out there in their right mind who thought inhaling diesel fumes (any *any* sort of petrochemical fumes, for that matter) WASN'T bad for you? Okay the cancer thing may be a new twist, but was there really anyone out there arguing for *more* diesel fumes for their workers?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. And my guess is that is wrong by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    We don't know what the actual causative factors are, but one thing is clear: complete combustion to carbon dioxide and water should not present a risk. Plant oils produce just as much in the way of soot and hydrocarbons as petroleum-derived oil. Overheating of vegetable oil, in fact, results in the production of known carcinogens.

    It is partly for this reason that I've switched from Diesel back to gasoline for car power - I am not convinced that the Diesel industry has cracked all its problems with emissions.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  9. Diesel vs. Gasoline/Petrol by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this won't be used to fuel the hysteria against diesel.

    For some reason, tree-huggers driving huge waste-emitting SUVs (so they can drive to the forest to hug those trees) seem to think diesel is the Devil's fume.

    A properly tuned modern diesel engine is sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other vs. gasoline. Some emissions are better, some worse. The Euro Standards have done a lot to reduce them.

    And if you're riding a bicycle, you might have some standing. But please don't preach about diesel sitting in your gasoline-guzzler.

    p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Diesel vs. Gasoline/Petrol by couchslug · · Score: 3, Informative

      US standards are tighter than Euro standards.

      "p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into."

      Modern petrol engines are very long-lived, and can be made to the SAME longevity specs as a diesel. Witness the VW two valve engines which were designed with the SAME engine block and bottom end and and engine block capable of fitting diesel, carbed induction, and fuel injection components!

      Modern diesels are hideously expensive to repair in most cases (not VW). Modern pollution controls make them even more expensive to repair.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Diesel vs. Gasoline/Petrol by tibit · · Score: 2

      I don't really know what's there to tune on a modern Diesel engine. Care to elaborate? There are no adjustments, if it doesn't work right then something is worn out -- say, injectors, fuel pump, air mass sensor, rings, ...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  10. Re:Petroleum vs Veg by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    It would certainly be interesting to see; but I'm not sure that the outcome would be so rosy. The plant stuff would probably have fewer interesting inorganic components; but the ultrafine soot particles commonly produced by diesel engines, as well as any cool partially combusted hydrocarbon structures(some innocuous, some surprisingly nasty for the elements involved), would presumably still be unpleasant...

  11. S.E.P. by flirno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Somebody Else's Problem" .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem

  12. Re:First Amendment by avgjoe62 · · Score: 3, Informative

    First of all, freedom of speech only means that the government cannot impede your right to express constitutionally protected speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone has to give you space on their pulpit to make your speech. So, Facebook can ban you from their site, Yahoo can moderate your comments and the local newspaper can choose not to publish your letter to the editor. You are still free to stand on a street corner and speak out about what you believe to be important.

    Similarly, scientific journals do not HAVE to publish your paper. They are not obligated to. And when they have lawyers sending letters, threatening to tie up time and resources for years in a legal battle if the journal does publish your paper,you can bet that the journals will look long and hard at the costs to themselves for publishing your paper. It is not an issue of free speech - the government is not involved at all here. It is just a matter of intimidation. The industry lawyers are essentially school yard bullies, threatening to beat you up if you tell the teacher about what they've been doing. That those same lawyers know they will ultimately lose the case does not matter - they just want to threaten enough to make sure the paper never sees the light of day in a big, respectable public venue.

    Is this right? Is it ethical? I'd think not. But, is this legal? Unfortunately, yes. And whatever else it may be, it is not a matter of free speech. It's much more petty and venal than that.

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  13. Re:They will go after the trucking industry by dlp211 · · Score: 2

    Would you like something to drink with that strawman?

  14. You Might Want to Think Twice About That by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    It has been brought to our attention that you have an insightful idea that you wish to openly publish. At our firm "Dickweed, Asshole and Soulless" we value honesty and the truth but not as much as we value a large legal battle regarding your slanderous and libelous post. I don't feel the need to elucidate on what exactly we could charge you with but I would like to remind you that our clients are very powerful companies. Furthermore my colleague Chet Percy Soulless, Esquire takes a very personal pleasure in heading up cases against individuals such as yourself. On his desk is a ledger full of haikus devoted to this very topic mixed with poems of a rabbits dying breath as his white knuckled hands deny any more oxygen to its lungs -- this tome's title being "Satiated Bloodlust" golden embossed on what appears to be human skin. But I digress.

    Letters similar to this one have been sent to Slashdot and various other users who have already agreed not to post such dangerous and unfounded ideas such as yours. So remember that, before you hit submit on the above post, you will be hearing from our firm if you do.

    Ambiguously threateningly yours,

    Alfred A. Asshole, Barred Attorney

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You Might Want to Think Twice About That by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Like that would ever happen: There's no way that 2 senior partners would interrupt their golf game to handle a simple C&D.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. Some Questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I did RTFA, will not RTF studies most likely, but I am curious as to what parts of the diesel exhaust they decided were dangerous. The article implies also that they haven't examined current diesel exhaust towards the end, what with the mentions of things that have been done like DPFs and low-sulfur diesel.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:Petroleum vs Veg by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    Oil is organic. There's nothing inorganic about it. Where do you think it comes from?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  17. Re:Petroleum vs Veg by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2

    Came here to say this. This is the equivalent of people saying they don't want chemicals in their food. Utter and complete idiocy.

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  18. Nonexistent UK car manufacturing? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2

    Honda, Nissan, Toyota, BMW and a Chinese company whose name escapes me all beg to differ. Just like the USA, we have plenty of car makers; it is just that, owing to the serial incompetence of British managements, they are not British owned. And, as anyone who has ever had to drive a God forbid, British Leyland vehicle will tell you, this is a Good Thing.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  19. Re:Petroleum vs Veg by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Organic material that has been enjoying the company of whatever rocks and minerals have been sitting next to it for a zillion years, possibly leaching interesting inorganics(sulfur is the star name, because it shows up in fair quantity and sulfur oxides are pretty visibly noxious; but all kinds of inorganics show up in smaller quantities: calcium, copper, lead, vanadium, sodium, etc.) Oil is mostly organic; but sometimes the exceptions count.

    Quantities depend on where the crude the diesel was distilled from originated, how exacting the refining process was, what the additives were(and, depending on the plant and where it was grown, may well not be zero in the biodiesel either); but they definitely do show up, and in quantities significant enough to be of engineering concern for fuel users, particularly of very expensive or very delicate engines.

    You'll see references to sulfur and trace metal limits and testing methods in various standards for fuels: ASTM D3605 is one testing method, MIL-F-16884 one standard that sets requirements for trace metal content.

    There's even a pricey textbook!

  20. cars emit only 10% by 1800maxim · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish I bookmarked/copied/saved an article I came across a few years ago. It was a study/research paper that split emissions as follows:

    personal automobiles - 10% diesel transport trucks, diesel trains - 90%

    Not talking about CO2 emissions, but about other harmful gases. I applaud that we don't have smelly car exhausts, but not looking to regulate diesel trucks/trains is just like putting a band aid on a gushing wound.

  21. Because you've kept your eyes closed? by F69631 · · Score: 2

    Why haven't I ever seen a study done on this? Oh, probably because there's a whole market (and political party) around guilting certain consumers into buying these products.

    The short answer is that you've not paid much attention. Maybe your prejudices cause you to avoid environmentalist media and thus contribute to you now knowing what they're actually all about? Besides, it seems like you're referring to Democrats (or Greens, if you're outside USA) but the "buy a new car - now environmentally friendly!" is consumerism and benefits car manufacturers... thus your finger might be pointing too far left.

    Anyways, the recycling-vs-new is pretty well-researched topic. What's the carbon footprint of ... a new car? is what I first came up when googling (first try of keywords: "a new car environment", it was 4th result or so) but you can find plenty of more, if you're actually interested. And as you can see, that link is to a very mainstream site, so it's not like "the green journalists" would somehow be keeping this stuff off the news.

    I'll end with two pieces of trivia:
    1) Buying a cloth bag is more environmentally friendly than buying a plastic one only if you intend to use it well more than 100 times.
    2) Talking about carbon footprint of having pets is pretty much the easiest way to create ****storms among the environmentalists.