Slashdot Mirror


Short-Term Exposure To Diesel Fumes Causes Changes In Gene Expression

BarbaraHudson writes: The Vancouver Sun is reporting on experiments using human volunteers showing that just two hours of exposure to diesel exhaust fumes led to biological changes; some genes were switched on while others turned off. The air quality during the diesel fume exposures is said to be comparable to a Beijing highway or shipping ports in British Columbia. The next step is for researchers to study how changes in gene expression from air pollution affect the human body over the long term, since the study shows genes may be vulnerable to pollution without producing any obvious or immediate symptoms of ill health."

132 comments

  1. No control experiment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's try two hours of exposure to Slashdot and see what sorts of gene expression changes are detected.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:No control experiment by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's kinda a dumb study. Expose asthmatics to diesel fumes. Something happens at the gene level. What did they expect? Midoclorians?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:No control experiment by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Are they going to stop at diesel fuel? What else should be on the list of things that cause gene expression changes? How long and useful would that list be?

    3. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Maybe you should consider that asthma is on the rise, and that people with asthma are like the "canary in the mine shaft".

      It showed that just two hours of exposure to diesel exhaust fumes led to biological changes that meant some genes were switched on while others turned off.

      So, how much exposure before it happens to the rest of us? What can we do to lessen the effects? There are relevant questions.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:No control experiment by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rather I think the important bit here is the revelation that common air pollutants affect gene expression, not the effects of such expression. The mechanism is the important part.

      I assume they had a control group... is that a correct assumption?

      --
      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...
    5. Re:No control experiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      There are relevant questions.

      Not to the bean counters we put in charge. The economy is all that matters. No matter what happens, no matter how disastrous, there's always a profit to be made from it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Informative

      They had the subjects randomly exposed for 2 hours of filtered air or two hours of air contaminated by diesel fumes. Changes only happened when the subjects were exposed to diesel fumes. So basically, they controlled for everything except the fumes.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So the task at hand is to show how it can be profitable to be less polluting, the same as was done when businesses were complaining about new sulfur emission regulations, but then found they could sell the sulfur collected at a profit.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:No control experiment by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should making a specific industry stop causing us harm require the industry find profit in it? Shouldn't it be enough to demonstrate the harm and industry then stop the harm? Frankly if an industry requires a profit motive to stop hurting us, then that industry needs serious reforms at a root level.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:No control experiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      So, we should pay off the bully so he'll stop beating us up just because he 'creates jobs'?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      My point is that it's easier to use a carrot than a stick. If anti-pollution controls can make them a profit, then you really only have to convince a few, and the others will hop on the bandwagon because of the financial incentive, rather than trying to work around the issue.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      No, we should show the bully that it's in his self-interest. Better than trying to beat it in them with a stick.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:No control experiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Non-violence is always best, but making the current methods unprofitable also works. It gets around the 'leading the horse to water' problem.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:No control experiment by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe you should consider that asthma is on the rise, and that people with asthma are like the "canary in the mine shaft".

      I own both [old school indirect-injected, pollution control-free] diesels and [modern, multiple heated O2 sensor] gasoline vehicles, and I also have activity-induced bronchial asthma which can also be set off by allergies, like my allergies to dogs and cats. And what I've noticed is that gasoline fumes are probably an order of magnitude more likely to kick off my asthma. Which is why I'm wondering why they're studying this with regards to diesel fumes. I want to know who's footing the bill for this bull. It's not that it's bad science, it's that the motivations are probably evil if they're not looking at gasoline, which any asshole who's been to a filling station more than twice can tell you is more volatile than diesel. Diesel clings to your hands, but you can feel gasoline in your brain.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:No control experiment by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Why should making a specific industry stop causing us harm require the industry find profit in it?

      Because corporations write bills and buy politicians to submit and support them. These bills then become law.

      Frankly if an industry requires a profit motive to stop hurting us, then that industry needs serious reforms at a root level.

      Name an industry in which more than a couple dozen people are employed which is not hurting "us".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Gasoline engines have higher levels of carbon monoxide than diesel or propane engines. You don't want your test subjects dying on you, right?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:No control experiment by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Gasoline engines have higher levels of carbon monoxide than diesel or propane engines. You don't want your test subjects dying on you, right?

      Well, it's not my test. I guess I'll just take the fact that they'll do this test with diesel because it doesn't cause any significant primary health effects but won't do it with gasoline as yet another sign that diesel is safer than gas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:No control experiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's a game of 'pick your poison'. I too, prefer compression ignition over the spark. It's just more reliable and natural with more fuel flexibility. Continuous combustion of a steam or stirling engine would be the least polluting though.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:No control experiment by davester666 · · Score: 0

      Who the hell is getting turned on breathing diesel exhaust fumes? ;-)

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:No control experiment by itzly · · Score: 1

      It's not really surprising that nothing happens when you expose test subjects to air for a few hours.

    20. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a dumb study for more than just that. Any contact with the environmental changes also alters gene expression. That's what genes do.

    21. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commonly known as a "control group."

    22. Re:No control experiment by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      In the Libertarian Paradise, there are no external costs.

    23. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You'll see diesel equipment operating in mines and warehouses, specifically because the CO from gasoline engines will kill you in enclosed spaces. Same reason why Zambonis use propane to clean the ice in hockey arenas.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re:No control experiment by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      Let's try two hours of exposure to pornhub and see what sorts of jeans expression changes are detected.

    25. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >So, how much exposure before it happens to the rest of us? What can we do to lessen the effects? There are relevant questions.

      No they are not. Gene expression changes in response to the environment are supposed to happen. If they do not happen you are dead.

      The study is a bit like reading "Drinking too much alcohol causes puking" and thinking that this is a bad thing. Its not, you WANT to be puking, its your bodies way to deal with such things.

      Note that I am not claiming at all that diesel fume is healthy, but the fact that it changes gene expression is to be expected, and it is the bodies way to protect you from possible harm (whether this harm occurs and after how long exposure at what concentrations is not answered by this study).

      All in all, its a bit of a non-story that can be used to scare people.

    26. Re:No control experiment by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Bad science is what you get when you don't test your underlying assumptions. This test verifies that it happens, and quantifies where it happens. It's all part of dotting your i's and crossing you t's.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    27. Re:No control experiment by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      I don't really see how diesel vs. gas is a good vs. evil debate that warrants you throwing suspicion on their "evil" motivations.... They ran a test against Diesel. That doesn't mean they aren't going to run one against gasoline too.

      It's not like there's an evil Gasoline lobby buying up scientists to destroy the good name of Diesel.....

    28. Re:No control experiment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Continuous combustion of a steam or stirling engine would be the least polluting though

      I'd really like to have a steam-powered pickup truck, although I fear it would not be particularly practical. I do have one which would be a decent candidate for steam conversion, because it's big and it's an old diesel so no emissions controls. I lack some of the equipment I'd need to fab up the bits, though, let alone the most important parts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:No control experiment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not like there's an evil Gasoline lobby buying up scientists to destroy the good name of Diesel.....

      As far as I can tell, there is. Anyone who cares and is paying attention has seen all the different diesel hit pieces circulating lately. Some of them are probably the fault of the French, they're trying to ban diesel in the name of emissions controls right now instead of just banning diesels without emissions controls on them, which are the problem. The US federal government is also rabidly anti-diesel, and has been for decades.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can last only about 10 minutes of /. before starting to drown in the sea of juvenile know-it-alls.

    31. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should making a specific industry stop causing us harm require the industry find profit in it?

      You mean like the cancer causing yellow dye in Kraft Dinner? The one where the European Union said stop poisoning our children or you can't sell your crap here? So they came up with something else to color it in the EU, but continue to use the cancer causing variety in North America, even though they already have a substitute they could use. It's not even like they can say, "While we don't like giving kids cancer, we don't know how else to make it yellow."

    32. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that it's bad science, it's that the motivations are probably evil if they're not looking at gasoline, which any asshole who's been to a filling station more than twice can tell you is more volatile than diesel. Diesel clings to your hands, but you can feel gasoline in your brain.

      I don't really expect you to read the article, but if you at least looked at the title, you'd see this is about exhaust fumes, not vapors. Even the slashdot summary explains that.

    33. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why use a potentially more expensive color dye if your competitors aren't forced to do so?

    34. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " And what I've noticed is that gasoline fumes are probably an order of magnitude more likely to kick off my asthma."

      How are you sampling the gasoline fumes? Most people only notice these fumes when the car is first started and warming up. At which point the majority of the pollution controls aren't working yet. This is one of the reasons why extended warm-up periods aren't recommended for gasoline cars any more, They warm up much faster and there's no appreciable difference in wear from just driving it in a sedate manner until warmed.

    35. Re:No control experiment by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be enough to demonstrate the harm and industry then stop the harm?

      Maybe the study went further than the article, but Im not clear where you got "harm" from. The article mentions gene changes-- that doesnt mean they were harmful.

      You know what they say about assumptions.

      Frankly if an industry requires a profit motive to stop hurting us, then that industry needs serious reforms at a root level.

      If you think you can expect institutional altruism out of anyone, I have a bridge to sell you.

    36. Re:No control experiment by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The one where the European Union said stop poisoning our children or you can't sell your crap here?

      While I agree that it would be nice if they just used beta carotene, has there been ANY evidence that yellow 5 and the other colors they use have EVER caused a single incidence of cancer? The "poisoning our children" angle is fun and all but these colorings are everywhere in our foods, its pretty silly to single kraft out over this.

    37. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

    38. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

    39. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

    40. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

    41. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

    42. Re:No control experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... you ate your words for? Downmod this we see it anyhow (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

    43. Re: No control experiment by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has the same harm vs benefit outlook. You might want a perfect green earth but I like cheap energy today and can live with the health risks. We are all going to die someday and at least I want to be warm. So the short answer is, I don't care about your genes and you don't care if people freeze. To each his own. There is no "we".

      --
      This is my sig.
    44. Re:No control experiment by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well yes, admittedly, those gene changes could lead to the spontaneous evolution of a new race of supermen.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    45. Re: No control experiment by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's always good to get a sociopath's point of view.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    46. Re:No control experiment by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Diesel tends to be better for particulate matter now, although I'm surprised your older one is apparently better for you... Must be something in the gasoline that causes your reaction, rather than just the amount of particulate matter.

      What diesel sucks for though is carcinogens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re: No control experiment by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      It's always good to get a sociopath's point of view.

      I think you misspelled "libertarian".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. A "dumb" study? No, not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Short term exposure to a common pollutant causes massive mutation possibilities, and coupled with the rise in cancers (noted along major highways for example) perhaps you're too dumb to study this study instead?

  3. Re:A "dumb" study? No, not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cyclamate is banned and you will get cancer if you drink five pallets of soda sweetened by it for five years.

  4. What about exposure to Diesel Jeans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That can't be good either.

  5. I think genes should be able ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... to express themselves and gassing them with diesel fuel is is just wrong because 1st amendment.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:I think genes should be able ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If diesel genes are outlawed, only outlaws will have Diesel jeans.

  6. Re:Activists not scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Short-Term Exposure To Diesel Fumes Causes Changes In Gene Expression

    Diesel engines are a blessing. I ought to know. I've owned Cummins stock for many years.

    Thanks for, ah...expressing yourself.

  7. Well duh! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hopefully all those morons who are ""rollin coal" will be sterile so they can't pass on their defective genes to another generation.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    âoeDiesel engine exhaust is a known carcinogen that is responsible for two-thirds of the lifetime cancer risk from air pollution in our region,â Moore said. âoeThe prohibitions that come into effect in 2015 are essential to protect human health by reducing emissions of harmful diesel soot from industrial and construction machines.â

    Why is this witch-hunt against diesel fuel? Why not gasoline? Can someone explain to me why the world is up in arms about diesel fuel but calmly ignoring the fact that gasoline engines produce just as much soot, but with finer (and thus more hazardous) particulates? And that they release more unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, although to be fair, direct gasoline injection is erasing that particular problem. Is this just about preventing us from using biofuels?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drnb · · Score: 1

      In the US we could greatly reduce pollution in the very near future with existing technology by switching our heavy trucks from diesel to natural gas. Such trucks aren't going electric anytime soon. Biodiesel might be interesting but its not ready to scale up as necessary anytime soon. We'll probably have to wait some number of decades as the US military breaks ground with respect to large scale use of biofuels.

      That said we probably need to cleanup our natural gas production so that any gains on the back end (trucking) are not lost on the front end (production).

    2. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      In the US we could greatly reduce pollution in the very near future with existing technology by switching our heavy trucks from diesel to natural gas.

      False. We could switch them to biodiesel from algae, though.

      Biodiesel might be interesting but its not ready to scale up as necessary anytime soon.

      False. We could scale it up in very short order if we wanted to. You pump seawater into the desert and grow algae in raceway ponds. The USDoE proved this technology at Sandia NREL in the 1980s, and showed that it should be profitable by the time diesel fuel hit $3/gal. It is over that now.

      That said we probably need to cleanup our natural gas production so that any gains on the back end (trucking) are not lost on the front end (production).

      Natgas production is today based on fracking. Fail, fail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Why diesel fuel? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      We could easier and more quickly reduce pollution by pushing a shift from gasoline to much more efficient diesel engines in the meantime, though, with no added infrastructure. I already get 50 mpg with my awesome TDI.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:Why diesel fuel? by itzly · · Score: 2

      And what are we going to do with all the gasoline that's produced, then ?

    5. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just burn or dump in the ocean as all other things that we do not need.

    6. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drnb · · Score: 2

      In the US we could greatly reduce pollution in the very near future with existing technology by switching our heavy trucks from diesel to natural gas.

      False. We could switch them to biodiesel from algae, though.

      No we could not do that in the very near future.

      Biodiesel might be interesting but its not ready to scale up as necessary anytime soon.

      False. We could scale it up in very short order if we wanted to. You pump seawater into the desert and grow algae in raceway ponds. The USDoE proved this technology at Sandia NREL in the 1980s, and showed that it should be profitable by the time diesel fuel hit $3/gal. It is over that now.

      No. The fact that the technology is proven does not mean that it is ready to scale up to necessary levels any time soon. We are only now just beginning to experiment with large scale production as part of US military pilot programs. Your algae ponds will be tied up in court for a decade or more before the first shovel touches desert tortoise or kangaroo rat habitat. Let alone all the necessary engineering that still needs to take place.

      That said we probably need to cleanup our natural gas production so that any gains on the back end (trucking) are not lost on the front end (production).

      Natgas production is today based on fracking. Fail, fail.

      No, the fracking techniques could be cleaned up. Regulations are need to ensure proper shaft creation, non-toxic fluids being pumped, fracking is at proper depths and below proper impermeable layers, etc. There is nothing wrong with the fracking concept, its the current implementation that is screwed up. An implementation based on low costs not safety.

    7. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Citation, anonymous blow-hard, or you're just noise.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    8. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it depends on which pollutant you choose to cherry pick.If you want to claim CO2 as a "pollutant", then deisel is less polluting, by about 15%.

      But, if you are concerned about breathing plain old soot, then he's not really an anonymous blow-hard or just nooise. You however...

    9. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      he's not really an anonymous blow-hard or just nooise

      He's still just a blow-hard and noise, because it required you - a different person - to provide the citation he should have included in the first place.

      There are plenty of people on Slashdot who like to bray "No, you're wrong, and you're stupid too," as if being told off by an AC ever mattered to anyone. Note that I didn't state an opinion on the matter one way or another, because I need to research first. You can snipe at me and try to annoy me but it's still not going to change my mind, I'm simply never going to accept a post like the GP's at face value without wanting details. Sorry if that bothers you.

      You however...

      OK, so I'm a blow-hard and a bunch of noise because I asked for a citation? Or is it because I have little patience for 'facts' tossed off by random Internet posters who expect me to accept their opinion as gospel truth?

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read your linked article and educate myself on the topic, thank you for the link.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    10. Re:Why diesel fuel? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why the world is up in arms about diesel fuel but calmly ignoring the fact that gasoline engines produce just as much soot, but with finer (and thus more hazardous) particulates?

      Since the late 90s, gasoline engines have advanced to the point where the exhaust is cleaner than air it ingests. To be fair, that metric was true around the introduction of the Honda ZLEV when older cars were still belching out unclean exhaust. All newer vehicles from mid 2000s on up employ similar technologies to ensure that just pure water vapor and CO2 remains. If you could ice-pack the exhaust, you could theoretically collect the water condensation and drink it!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Why diesel fuel? by caseih · · Score: 4, Informative

      But gasoline doesn't produce the same soot. Plainly put, diesel particulates are more toxic than particulates from gasoline combustion. Modern diesels, however, are much, much more clean than older diesels. I drove a diesel rental car in Turkey recently that was diesel and its exhaust just smelled like steam.

      Diesel engines have two problems when it comes to pollution. Particulates and NOx emissions. Particulates can be eliminated with by increasing the heat and pressure of combustion. That takes care of most immediate, toxic product of combustion right there. However, increasing heat and pressure also leads to more N2 reacting with O2 to make NOx, which causes smog and acid rain, also serious human health concerns. If you go the other way and cool combustion way down, you can virtually eliminate NOx, but you get tons of particulates. So either reduce NOx by cooling combustion with recirculated exhaust gasses and stick on a filter to catch and burn particulates (the dreaded regen cycle that truckers can tell you about), or turn up the heat and treat NOx separately using a catalyst, urea. Most auto makers are finding that urea into the exhaust works best because the engine can be super simple again. However the big problem with this is that in northern climates (most of the western world), cars don't drive far enough to warm up completely, so you still have unwanted pollution.

      Gasoline (petrol) does emit some particulates but they seem to not be as dangerous. Petrol engines also emit NOx but modern catalytic converters convert it to N2 and water.

      And of course all fossil fuels emit net CO2. Biofuels can theoretically be carbon neutral, but if they are diesel-like (burn in a diesel engine) they still very much have the same pollution issues as diesel, and will have to be treated in the exact same way, using EGR, SCR (with urea), or some other technology. Likewise gasoline-like biofuels will still have to have the same pollution control systems as regular gasoline engines.

    12. Re:Why diesel fuel? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why is this witch-hunt against diesel fuel? Why not gasoline? Can someone explain to me why the world is up in arms about diesel fuel but calmly ignoring the fact that gasoline engines produce just as much soot, but with finer (and thus more hazardous) particulates?

      Because your argument dates back to the 80s. Diesel was long understood to be the healthier cleaner fuel with gasoline having all manner of carcinogens. Filtration, catalytic conversion, changes to injection strategies and engine design, and even changes to the fundamental mixture of gasoline (replacement of tetraethyllead with more benzine, and then the saturation of benzine in favour of other non-carcinogenic aromatics) have all lead to a cleaner gasoline engine. By contrast diesel has remained relatively static with only minor efficiency gains. We have learnt more about toxicity, we have learnt more about combustion. Gasoline engines do NOT produce more soot or fine particulates than diesel anymore. Gasoline engines also don't have a high concentration of nitrousoxides which more recent research suggests are very hazardous to health.

      That is why diesel engines are getting the focus, because we have focused on the gasoline engine for the last 30 years and have made them better. Now diesel is no longer the "healthier" engine.

    13. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      No we could not do that in the very near future.

      Yes, yes we could. It's cheap and easy.

      No. The fact that the technology is proven does not mean that it is ready to scale up to necessary levels any time soon.

      Yes. The test was applicable to large-scale production. If you had read the report then you would know this. I've read the whole thing, how much have you read?

      No, the fracking techniques could be cleaned up.

      [citation needed]

      Regulations are need to ensure proper shaft creation

      There's no such thing.

      non-toxic fluids being pumped

      So, only water then?

      fracking is at proper depths and below proper impermeable layers, etc

      There's no such thing, and no such thing.

      There is nothing wrong with the fracking concept, its the current implementation that is screwed up.

      No, implementation of the idea is screwed up.

      An implementation based on low costs not safety.

      It's never safe, because the repercussions are never clear, because our remote sensing technology will not tell us everything we need to know to frack intelligently. Maybe someday, but not today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      But gasoline doesn't produce the same soot.

      False.

      Gasoline (petrol) does emit some particulates but they seem to not be as dangerous.

      False again. See previous link. Gasoline engines produce just as much soot as diesels, and more of it is PM2.5, which is the most hazardous kind of soot particle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Since the late 90s, gasoline engines have advanced to the point where the exhaust is cleaner than air it ingests.

      Nope. See my last comment in this discussion for a citation... a link right back here to slashdot, so you have no excuse for mouthing off while being ignorant.

      To be fair, that metric was true around the introduction of the Honda ZLEV when older cars were still belching out unclean exhaust.

      To be fair, that metric was bullshit around the introduction of the Honda ZLEV. The methods which have been used to measure soot coming from engines have not accurately measured the PM2.5 counts, which are vastly higher than previously believed.

      All newer vehicles from mid 2000s on up employ similar technologies to ensure that just pure water vapor and CO2 remains.

      Ah yes, and unicorn farts and fairy skeet, no doubt.

      If you could ice-pack the exhaust, you could theoretically collect the water condensation and drink it!!!

      You first. Please do it a lot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (replacement of tetraethyllead with more benzine, and then the saturation of benzine in favour of other non-carcinogenic aromatics)

      Let's be clear on what we're talking about here when we say "other non-carcinogenic aromatics" — ethanol. Ethanol is best-case around 15% energy-positive, and it is based on destruction of topsoil. Therefore, it is horribly harmful. It's already up to 10% in many fuels, and the government would like to increase it to 15% in spite of the fact that this level will cause serious problems for owners of most modern vehicles, let alone slightly old ones — and the average age of the American passenger vehicle is at a record high. So not only will this destroy many vehicles before their time, as many vehicles which could be repaired will simply be scrapped while others will catch on fire due to failed lines or seals, but it also damages our very ability to produce food. I demand that you account for that when you tally up the environmental impact of gasoline if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who has actually looked into this issue for more than two seconds.

      By contrast diesel has remained relatively static with only minor efficiency gains.

      Of course, the initial efficiency was dramatically higher, you would expect less improvement. It remains more efficient than gasoline, even given modern TGDI systems.

      Gasoline engines do NOT produce more soot or fine particulates than diesel anymore.

      [citation needed] Besides, nobody said they produced more soot. What they do is produce just as much soot, and it is still finer soot. There's no new emissions equipment on gasoline vehicles that hasn't been there for decades. What's new is direct injection, which reduces emissions per liter burned and also improves output at the same time, but it also fouls the intake valves and nobody has figured out how to solve this problem properly yet. While the valves are fouled, the car will run rich. Guess what that does to emissions. Eventually, it burns out the catalyst. But there's no law against driving around with the MIL illuminated, and even cars which get emissions tested only get it every couple of years.

      Gasoline engines also don't have a high concentration of nitrousoxides which more recent research suggests are very hazardous to health.

      NOx is a problem solved with urea injection. And due to our factory food systems, we can come up with the piss easily.

      That is why diesel engines are getting the focus, because we have focused on the gasoline engine for the last 30 years and have made them better. Now diesel is no longer the "healthier" engine.

      Bollocks. I say it is, and that the available published research proves it handily. Let's see them repeat this test with gasoline. Will you volunteer to be a guinea pig? Let's see all the factors accounted for, not just the emissions. It takes less energy to make diesel fuel to begin with, too. Where's the evidence that gasoline is better for us than diesel?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, because you posted *twice* after the "blowhard", but you didn't provide any useful information at all yourself.

      Here you go, this citation makes me better than you, in your estimation:
      http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/23/science/la-sci-sn-diesel-pollution-20121022

      Fucking retard.

    18. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, diesel vehicles are immune from annual pollution inspections (in all three of the jurisdictions in which I have had to deal with it).

    19. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      No. I didn't come here pretending I had useful information in the first place.

      Why so butt-hurt? Perhaps you really do think yourself above everyone else here? Clearly I was too reasonable in dealing with you. What a waste of time, I should have used ad hominen - looking at your posts that seems to be all you can comprehend.

      Here you go, this citation makes me better than you, in your estimation:
      Fucking retard.

      Don't trouble yourself with 'my estimation', cunt, because you know nothing about me. Sort out your reading comprehension skills and tell me where I said I was better, you fucking arsehole.

      Useless, oxygen-thieving fucktard, go die in a fire you worthless cunt. There, that should be simple enough for you to grasp. Incompetent morons like you are what is killing slashdot, hope you're proud of yourself defending the casual bullshit of vitriolic anonymous fuckwits.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    20. Re:Why diesel fuel? by caseih · · Score: 2

      Okay, maybe that's true, but come on, referencing a slashdot article as a citation? I hadn't read up on this before, so it was interesting. Apparently filtering technology does exist to filter gasoline particulates.

    21. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drnb · · Score: 1

      No we could not do that in the very near future.

      Yes, yes we could. It's cheap and easy.

      Your own old citation proves otherwise. Your citation mentions various open questions moving from lab conditions to field conditions. Swings in desert temperatures were very disruptive, hostile to many species. At best your citation claims they have shown large scale plausibilty. As I said, much work remains.

      Wiki shows that more recent government cost estimates approach US$200 a barrel pricing.

      No. The fact that the technology is proven does not mean that it is ready to scale up to necessary levels any time soon.

      Yes. The test was applicable to large-scale production. If you had read the report then you would know this. I've read the whole thing, how much have you read?

      You need to re-read. They claim nothing more than plausibility of large scale production from the olympic sized pool testing. The US military is only now attempting large scale production and anticipates **decades** of work ahead. And the needs of the military are dwarfed by commercial trucking. After basic science comes engineering and engineering takes time.

      Maybe someday, but not today.

      A perfect summary of the situation regarding algae based biofuels. I'd love to see it happen but for the near future we could move to natural gas or continue to use petroleum.

    22. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "False again. See previous link. Gasoline engines produce just as much soot as diesels, and more of it is PM2.5, which is the most hazardous kind of soot particle."

      I see you are still repeating this falsehood. That's not what the link says, it says that cars produce more PM2.5 than previously thought.

      Even if that study were correct (It never directly measured black carbon (just general particulates) and never directly measured black carbon from petrol engines (they directly measured diesel engines, then indirectly measured at the roadside, and counted the number of trucks and cars. The higher measurement was assumed to be from cars with poor controls for other sources. eg: dust, diesel regen, fine tire particles (primarily made from carbon black), etc), you realise that this means that diesel engines produce only 12-200x more black carbon than petrol engines? (The original range was 25-400x: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html)

    23. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apparently filtering technology does exist to filter gasoline particulates."

      Diesels also produce these ultra-fine particles during regen. A DPF captures the larger particles, then periodically burns them off in a regen, resulting in these ultra-fine particles.

    24. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe that's true, but come on, referencing a slashdot article as a citation?

      That's obviously the most logical thing to do, because it links you to the metadiscussion in which most of the obvious objections will be raised and possibly dispelled, but it also links you to the citation. Plus, it hammers home the fact that we've discussed this very issue here on slashdot in the past.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Swings in desert temperatures were very disruptive, hostile to many species

      This is not a serious problem, because over time the best species will colonize the ponds and you simply harvest the dieoffs.

      The US military is only now attempting large scale production and anticipates **decades** of work ahead.

      Because the military will do something slow and expensively, it can't be done right?

      I'd love to see it happen but for the near future we could move to natural gas or continue to use petroleum.

      Actually, the best solution would be to produce Butanol. We'd be able to buy that already but a holding company owned jointly by BP and DuPont is suing a company owned by GE ventures to prevent them from selling it to us. It's a less polluting 1:1 replacement for gasoline made by bacteria since the 1800s. The patent should have been denied on the basis of obviousness and it relates to copying the gene for the ABE process from the original organism into basically anything else that might be suitable to carry it, and it was developed at a public university and therefore partly with our money (yours and mine.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Why diesel fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me

    27. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drnb · · Score: 1

      Swings in desert temperatures were very disruptive, hostile to many species

      This is not a serious problem, because over time the best species will colonize the ponds and you simply harvest the dieoffs.

      No, the goal is not to simply get something to grow. The point is to get specific species that produce desired byproducts efficiently to grow. Selection for the environment is one thing, selecting for efficient industrial production is something else. This is one of the differences between basic scientific research that demonstrates feasibility and engineering that produces a product, in academia a certain amount of hand waving, of leaving secondary problems for the next researcher (or engineer), is allowed.

      Because the military will do something slow and expensively, it can't be done right?

      Like it or not the military is leading the effort to industrialize biofuels and do large scale production. Historically many scientific and engineering advances have come from the military. When the military wants a technology then that field generally advances faster than when left purely to academia and industry. Military involvement is probably very good news for biofuels.

      Actually, the best solution would be to produce Butanol. We'd be able to buy that already but a holding company owned jointly by BP and DuPont is suing a company owned by GE ventures to prevent them from selling it to us. It's a less polluting 1:1 replacement for gasoline made by bacteria since the 1800s. The patent should have been denied on the basis of obviousness and it relates to copying the gene for the ABE process from the original organism into basically anything else that might be suitable to carry it, and it was developed at a public university and therefore partly with our money (yours and mine.)

      Many public universities retain patents related to any research done by their faculty or students. Licensing is a source of revenue, in theory reducing the amount of taxpayer revenue to run the place. At the University of California 50% of licensing fees go to the statewide university system, 25% to the department of the researchers and 25% to the researchers themselves. Researchers are required to report anything that is remotely patentable, a special department handles all the legal BS. The university does give small and/or local companies preferential pricing and consideration with respect to licensing fees, hoping to promote a local cluster of expertise.

    28. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, the goal is not to simply get something to grow. The point is to get specific species that produce desired byproducts efficiently to grow.

      If you had read the report instead of searching it for terms on which to attack it, you'd know that the major discovery of the study was that there's no point to selecting organisms deliberately, because the most efficient algae for your location will just show up and colonize the pond.

      Like it or not the military is leading the effort to industrialize biofuels and do large scale production.

      But they want to do algae in "reactors" (which is generally the focus of the industry) because it's a more controlled environment. They don't want to use the cheap, easy way we have to do it already for all the usual reasons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drnb · · Score: 1

      ... because the most efficient algae for your location will just show up and colonize the pond

      The most efficient with respect to survival in the environment. That is not the same thing as the most efficient with respect to production of the desired chemicals and the efficiency of use of the injected CO2.

      But they want to do algae in "reactors" (which is generally the focus of the industry) because it's a more controlled environment. They don't want to use the cheap, easy way we have to do it already for all the usual reasons.

      You are making many assumptions about your very dated and very early stage research citation. There are still many technical problems with ponds and reactors are expensive. If quality control and non-seasonality are more important than cost then in the short term reactors are the way to go, this seems to be the case for the military. The industry is still researching both paths and expects large scale productions to be decades away. As I said, there is a lot of engineering to do to go from a small feasibility study to actual large scale production.

    30. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The most efficient with respect to survival in the environment. That is not the same thing as the most efficient with respect to production of the desired chemicals and the efficiency of use of the injected CO2.

      So far, it is the same thing. The cost of building and maintaining the reactor is not justified by the output. All we need to implement the existing plan is cheap stuff. You want it to make more sense to build expensive reactors.

      You are making many assumptions about your very dated and very early stage research citation.

      You are the one making assumptions. And dated doesn't mean bad. Nothing fundamental has changed. They've GM'd up some algaes, but none of them are actually living up to their promise. That's because we're trying to outdo nature, which has several billion years on us, especially in the algae department.

      As I said, there is a lot of engineering to do to go from a small feasibility study to actual large scale production.

      No, there isn't, because the technology is so simple. There's very little engineering involved. We're talking about problems which were solved twenty years ago, and you want to make it seem like the fact that they were solved decades ago makes them somehow unsolved.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Why diesel fuel? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I drove a diesel rental car in Turkey recently that was diesel and its exhaust just smelled like steam.

      Not that I doubt your assertion, but I do wonder about your methodology and specifically the equipment used. When was your nose last calibrated?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:Why diesel fuel? by MercTech · · Score: 1

      True, the burning of cetane in diesel fuel results in soot.. fine carbon which settles out. Whereas gasoline engines produce carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides that become nitric acid upon combining with the water in the air.

      It is the colorless stuff that is more of a hazard than the soot from accelerating diesel engines.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    33. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drnb · · Score: 1

      ... You are the one making assumptions. And dated doesn't mean bad. Nothing fundamental has changed ... because the technology is so simple. There's very little engineering involved. We're talking about problems which were solved twenty years ago ...

      OK, you have lost all credibility. Any mild amount of googling proves you wrong. Try it some time. Once you get remotely familiar with the topic you will find that both paths need significant research and engineering and cost reductions. The old swimming pool sized study you cling to proves little.

    34. Re:Why diesel fuel? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OK, you have lost all credibility.

      You have none to lose.

      Once you get remotely familiar with the topic you will find that both paths need significant research and engineering and cost reductions.

      The problems of pumping water from pool to pool are well-solved in agriculture. Again, there is no significant research needed for that approach, and only from an ivory tower view can you imagine that there is. These were well-solved problems before the program even began.

      The old swimming pool sized study you cling to proves little.

      It proves just how simple the process is: you can do it anywhere that will hold water. They didn't have to build anything out of the ordinary. That proves the viability of the concept. No new technologies whatsoever are needed; you just plug together stuff we already have. The only "engineering" involved is stuff like matching pumps to pipes, and you can do that by checking a LUT.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Do genes normally turn on/off ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do genes turn off and on normally due to environmental conditions? Or just in response to pollutants?

    If I visit a warm pristine beach for two hours do genes turn on/off, if I visit a chilly pristine mountain for two hours do genes turn on/off?

    1. Re:Do genes normally turn on/off ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do genes turn off and on normally due to environmental conditions?

      Transient high glucose causes persistent epigenetic changes and altered gene expression during subsequent normoglycemia , so the answer is "yes". So, now we have glucose inducing the same conceptual effect as diesel fumes. Glucose, as I'm sure you know, is the primary fuel for animal cells and is a form of sugar.

      None of this shit is surprising, because even bacteria exhibit this altered gene expression effect based on the presence of heat, lactose, tryptophan, etc.

      AC because I'm sick of science denier trolls and people who want to float their own crackpot theories.

  10. We already know something about long-term exposure by PapayaSF · · Score: 3, Funny

    We already know something about long-term exposure, based on observing career truck drivers: diesel fumes don't cause weight loss.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  11. Backlash against renewables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diesel engines, unlike regular gas engines, can run off renewable vegetable oils. Folks run 'em off used french fry oil and such. There's been a lot of money and research flowing toward how bad diesel engines are... You'll notice there's almost no diesel cars in the US, in spite of how they could cut oil imports!

    Then we have this study. Loosely translated: Living causes changes in Gene Expression.

    More fluff in the media. I swear. Pravda in Russia at the height of the cold war had less bias!

  12. Ultrafine particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ultrafine particles (UFP) are probably both the least well-studied and least regulated form of air pollution (IIRC, they're somewhat tricky to reliably measure at all in an uncontrolled environment, let alone measured by a means that can be deployed for routine large-scale monitoring), and there's a small pile of studies showing that they do have health effects, though no one seems to know exactly what the mechanisms or dose-response curves are, or how the short-term effects translate into identifiable disease etiologies. For example, there are studies in both rats[0] and humans[1] consistent with the presence of UFP inhibiting the exercise-stimulated production of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a neurological growth factor that is believed to play a key role in multiple psychiatric disorders and even some forms of obesity. There are other studies showing other effects; those were just the ones that particularly came to mind.

    I bring this up because although modern diesel engines are far cleaner than the classic models, they are known to produce considerable amounts of UFP pollution. Gasoline engines and various other technologies (laser printers / photocopiers, various forms of precision machining...) aren't entirely innocent, either.

    [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22867973
    [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21708224

  13. seems genes are not so static by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Another study found that gene activity changes by 25% when you have the flu.
    The old view that genes are static and never change during your life seems less and less accurate.

    1. Re:seems genes are not so static by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Another study found that gene activity changes by 25% when you have the flu.
      The old view that genes are static and never change during your life seems less and less accurate.

      Wrong idea:

      Gene EXPRESSION = making proteins (and some other stuff that we will ignore for now)
      Gene CHANGE = mutation (very roughly) and we had thought that you the structure of your genes did not change during your lifetime. We know that this isn't true anymore (methylation, transposons, CASPR and a bunch of other neat things).

      So gene EXPRESSION has to happen for your body to do anything. Which is why this study is pretty dumb. Yes, the genes involved seemed to be associated with inflammation but that's no surprise nor terribly informative. Find out WHICH genes and you might be getting somewhere although I think most of us are OK with the idea that breathing diesel fumes is bad for you.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. hark at the disappointed... by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    another gas pedal gone spongy on you, sorry.

    you ARE killing us.

    park it.

  15. Tobacco Smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh but tobacco smoke is so much more evil. It is the evilest of all airborne contaminants. *fake cough* Oh your tobacco smoke is making me sick! Nevermind all the trucks chugging black exhaust and partially combusted diesel fuel.

    No nothing is worse than tobacco smoke. If we execute all the smokers the world will be a perfect utopia.

    1. Re:Tobacco Smoke by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear bomb tests which have no doubt added some interesting ingredients to our atmosphere.

      Interesting that lung cancer spiked like crazy starting around the 1940's.

      But yes, tobacco is killing you. It's all about the smokes. Because people only started smoking in the 1940's, right?

    2. Re:Tobacco Smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the epidemiologists who estimate that upwards of 85% of all lung cancer cases are attributable to smoking are in the pocket of Big Anti-Tobacco, or what?

      (captcha: "humors", which I initially misread as "tumors" for obvious reasons)

    3. Re:Tobacco Smoke by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Big Pharma, is my guess.

      Another big event which came along in the 1940's was vaccination.

      Crushing up the spinal column of a polio victim, injecting it into the brain of a monkey, (which then amazingly suffered paralysis and death), was enough to convince doctors that they had found the virus responsible for polio. -They hadn't; there is no polio virus. Polio was caused by pesticides in -everything- including DDT pre-soaked wall paper of children's bedrooms; all the polio outbreaks happened in the summer months when spraying was happening, and in regions where spraying was happening. And everybody knew it was a toxic response, but a few asshole opportunists were able to sell the virus story and divert millions of dollars in tax money to their pet research projects, thus beginning the billion-dollar virology field.

      Anyway... Virologists then took the resulting isolate ('purified' by injecting the stuff into an animal, and taking their juices and injecting it into the next animal), and grew batches of it on crushed up monkey kidneys obtained from Africa and Asia.

      They then injected this stuff, (contaminated with all the random genetic crap and other viruses you might expect when you crush up monkey organs) into millions of people. -And promptly killed a number of them in the process. Big scandal, all on record.

      In the following years, cancer spiked, they 'cured' polio, (actually just renamed the disease 'meningitis', which jumped in case incidents as much as polio went down), and they stopped spraying the suspect pesticides. But.., damage done. Cancer was on the way, they knew it, and the president and the medical community panicked.

      My guess is that they needed something to blame for the fall-out. Tobacco looked like the right candidate.

      Basically, "Modern industry and corrupt medicine" causes cancer. But since those two things are apparently indispensable components of our modern world, it had to be pinned on something else.

      Also, nicotine is one of the few (only?) drugs which sharpens thinking, causes better memory retention while relaxing fight/flight responses, it probably seemed like a good idea to get everybody off the stuff while trying to pull that amount of wool over the public's eyes.

  16. Completely unethical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how they try to justify it by by saying none one had an asthmatic event. Same logic tobacco manufacturers use...look at them no signs of breathing problems...until 50 years later when their lungs turn to shit.

  17. This should be easy to correlate by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    There are many occupations that should be available to correlate this -rather direct- attack on one fuel type. Truck Mechanics... Exposed to liquid and exhaust Tunnel operators that sit by many idling diesel trucks Truck drivers that drive older / dirtier vehicles. Volkwagen TDI drivers vs gas powered cars Sea Captains and deckhands that get exposed to bunker The direct assault on Diesel only seems callous at first glance. Am assuming that none of the Study participants never had exposure to diesel ever before. How stressful was the test, and could that have caused measurable changes? How did the test subjects not-know that they were breathing in diesel fumes? Lets do the same test on theater smoke, on second hand tobacco smoke, Farts and other noxious things that don't kill immediately.

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  18. Being near fat people changes gene expression too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we must make being overweight a crime comparable to dumping oil into a town's drinking water supply. Who would have guessed that science after dismissing Lysenkoism to be pseudoscience, now proves it to be actually true.

  19. To Volunteer Or Not by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    "600 bucks", they said. "You'll get new jeans", they said. Such a deal!

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  20. One word by koan · · Score: 1

    Morlocks.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  21. I love the smell of diesel fumes by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    I love the smell of diesel fumes. It reminds me of Chicago, and why I don't live there.

  22. WTF??? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    So they're going to defend freedom of speech by denying others their freedom of speech, right?

  23. Chicago train station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most intense diesel fumes I have ever encountered were in a downtown Chicago metro train station. Both on the platforms, and inside the terminal. It was winter, and I think there was some "ventilation" (because it was cold). It was choking and unbelievable.

    And as someone who welds, fabricates race cars, and enjoys kimchi, I know something about fumes.

  24. Try riding behind a team of flatulent horses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure we know all exhaust is bad for you and that the genes are always being turned on and off, there is nothing new in this.

    Using methods such as non-thermal plasma for diesel exhaust treatment was a possibility over ten years ago.

    http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/downloads/non-thermal-plasma-based-technologies-aftertreatment-diesel-exhaust

  25. Re:Activists not scientists by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    Just more activist trying to cause an another unwarranted hullabaloo. Diesel engines are a blessing. I ought to know. I've owned Cummins stock for many years.

    I own stock in Baby Seal Fur Harvester, Inc. Does that make me an expert on threatened species?

  26. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think it's something to be too afraid of, obviously we don't want to be breathing that stuff but, everything is connected to everything - that's how the universe works.

  27. Re:We already know something about long-term expos by volmtech · · Score: 1

    I was a maintenance tech at a produce packing plant where we received bulk semi loads of potatoes. We weighed the trucks in and out to calculate the delivery weight. One guy was HUGE! I made sure I watched the digital scale readout as he got out of his truck to get his scale ticket. He was over 600 lbs. He took his papers and then climbed the stairs to the second story office.

  28. Re:No control experiment_ Fast Track the Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move that study to Valdez, Alaska where you might wonder after seeing the beautiful postcards how it could be so polluted, but just keep your sight on the blue haze of benzene that lays in that basin of the most pristine, picturesue mountains and what used to be the cleanest water on the planet. You'll be very unpleasantly surprised to find out that the tankers are loaded with crude oil with the ventilation open directly into the air and with what everyone thought was a viable vapor recovery system that does not capture the fumes from the loading process because of the volitility of those heavy gases. The air was so bad at one point the EPA dismantled the air quality monitoring station erected to safeguard health concerns. There are, no doubt, biological changes happening in the short and long term to the life up in God's country.

  29. Like you when apk made you eat your words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

  30. Barb the online bully gets bullied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

  31. BarbaraHudson's stalking exposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

  32. Re:Activists not scientists by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Yeah, sure. Why not, if Jenny McCarthy is an immunologist.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  33. Re:Activists not scientists by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    omg, you likened my theoretical ownership of a non-existent company with Jenny McCarthy's activities.

    Even at that remove, I still feel all dirty and need to take a shower. Well played, sir.

  34. Idling schoolbuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sometimes see four-five diesel schoolbuses idling for half hour next to a school and the associated nearby children. Every day.