Slashdot Mirror
After Legal Fight, NCI Researchers Publish Study Linking Diesel Exhaust, Cancer
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."
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!
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...."
How could those lawyers live with themselves? What rationalizing did they have to twist their minds with to keep the pretense of humanity?
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."
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.
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."
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
"Somebody Else's Problem" .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem
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?
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.
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.