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."

3 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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!”
  3. 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.