Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the knowing-when-to-hold-your-breath dept.

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."

24 of 132 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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...
    4. 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!”
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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!”
    8. 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.'"
    9. 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.'"
    10. 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.'"
    11. Re:No control experiment by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      In the Libertarian Paradise, there are no external costs.

    12. 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. 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
  3. 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 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.'"
    2. Re:Why diesel fuel? by itzly · · Score: 2

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.'"
    6. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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

  6. 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.