Slashdot Mirror
Diesel Cars Contribute To 5,000 Premature Deaths a Year In Europe, Says Study (phys.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Emissions from diesel cars rigged to appear eco-friendly may be responsible for 5,000 air pollution deaths per year in Europe alone, according to a study published on Monday. The numbers are in line with previous assessments of deaths due to the so-called "Dieselgate" scandal, which erupted when carmaker Volkswagen admitted in 2015 to cheating on vehicle emissions tests. Many other carmakers have since fallen under suspicion. The researchers from Norway, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands calculated that about 10,000 deaths in Europe per year can be attributed to small particle pollution from light duty diesel vehicles (LDDVs). Almost half of these would have been avoided if emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel cars on the road had matched levels measured in the lab. If diesel cars emitted as little NOx as petrol ones, almost 4,000 of the 5,000 premature deaths would have been avoided, said the authors. The countries with the heaviest burden are Italy, Germany, and France, the team added, "resulting from their large populations and high share of diesel cars in their national fleets." Touted as less polluting, the share of diesel cars in Europe rose fast compared to petrol since the 1990s, and now comprise about half the fleet. There are more than 100 million diesel cars in Europe today, twice as many as in the rest of the world together, said the study authors. Diesel engines emit less planet-warming carbon dioxide than petrol ones, but significantly more NOx. The study has been published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
Tailpipes for the win!
I doubt greatly that the emissions is contributing that much to the health of individuals.
Maybe a better question to ask would be how many violent crimes have been committed by immigrants in the past few years and trying to figure out the commonality between them all.
That might have a greater impact on health and quality of life when you have such high crime in formally crimeless locales.
Leftards believe anything..
Then we're even, right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Seriously, these asshole politicians encouraged everyone to get rid of their old cars and get new diesel cars. They did that with huge price differences between the cost of petrol and diesel as well as other tax breaks.
Now, some years later, when so many people spent 30k of their hard earned money, propping up the auto industry, they say oh... you idiots bought the wrong car. You cannot drive that in our city. Also, you have to pay more tax because you chose to buy a "dirty" car. You had better buy a new "super clean" electric car which we do not have the power plants in place to charge if you want to come in to our city.
These guys need to be lined up and shot in the face, one by one. And like every 3rd shot will be a dud, just to increase the tension. Assholes!
BTW, diesel is still 30% cheaper to buy in Europe and on average gets 20% fuel economy. So... which one should I buy?
100 million Volkswagen diesel shit cars sending mass pollution into the sky and killing people. The US caught them doctoring the test results!
Usually, if you read the small print, it means something like 'someone who was seriously ill and would have died a few weeks later anyway.' In other words, pretty much totally irrelevant to anything but the Green agenda.
What's the definition used in this study?
I know it's Europe and European bureaucrats involved, but maybe they should just stop with all of these artificially-imposed economic distortions and just let the free market make decisions like this. The free market is much better at properly allocating resources than bureaucrats could ever hope to be. I know some people will cry about "cars causing global warming", but the reality is that powering electric vehicles with coal-generated power is worse than just letting people by gasoline-powered vehicles.
Not sure about the study, but the author of the article clearly has no clue what he/she is writing about. First the article says "10,000 deaths in Europe per year can be attributed to small particle pollution..." and then it continues "Almost half of these would have been avoided if emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel cars on the road had matched levels measured in the lab".
These two types of emission must be viewed separately. While small particles are solid particles in the size of less than 10 m, while NOx is an odorless gas. Both can be harmful, but in completely different ways. If you reduce the NOx emission, it will not reduce the healt impact of small particles in any way.
The author should read a book before writing about a subject that he/she doesn't understand.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
A small price to pay to silence the horde of VW driving neckbeards prattling on and on about their 85 mpg diesel Jettas and Golfs. And no more eurotards yapping about the miracle of diesel and stupid 'murka with its gasoline cars.
A fucking bargain.
For a religious study as this a limit of 50 Billion is more like it!
This is because the more dead contribute less to the Human Carbon Foot Print God!
Therefore, the UN must sanction the killing of 60 Trillion Humans to appease their hunger!
Hahahahahaha
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid
Trucks use it to clean exhaust, industry is used to it, when you refill your gas tank, you also refill DEF. Why don't the cars use it?
Does their deceit about the emissions levels on VW diesel engines, that contributes to deaths, lead to any criminal charges? Nope. Just fines and a round of golf. Corporations have no true accountability when the leaders get to go home and a lonely engineer is set up to take the fall.
Its even worse than that..
NOx reacts with Methane to remove it from the atmosphere, and Methane is much MUCH worse that CO2 with regards to greenhouse effects.
Estimates vary, however the accepted figure appears to be that the net effect of global diesel use is 20% net cooling effect.
So yes, Diesel contributes to global cooling! Climate change! Disaster!
(Also, lightning creates about the same amount of NOx as small vehicles, and both are much less than shipping, aircraft, or heavy industry..)
I doubt greatly that the emissions is contributing that much to the health of individuals.
All it says is "premature" death. What is not clear is by how much - shaving a day off the average life of 5,000 people is not that much statistically speaking. Shaving 10 years off is a lot. I also have to wonder that if diesel cars are having this much effect what is the effect of diesel lorries? These burn a lot more fuel than cars per kilometre and are driven far more too. If the effect of lorries is to cause the premature deaths of 50,000 people by whatever standard they are using then we should not be worrying about cars.
The amount is 10x that when the pollution abatement algorithm of the car's ECM sn't running :)
For killing those hapless fools!
There is absolutely nothing presented in that letter that suggests the 10,000 deaths or the 5,000 that might have been saved is anything more than conjecture. Use of those numbers is intended to shock readers and engender hate towards car manufacturers. Fabricating numbers to suit a political agenda and attaching the word "study" to it is irresponsible in the extreme.
I hate to say it but so what? I tend to be on the left environmentally but that statistic is not compelling at all. Five thousand people out of the hundreds of millions in Europe die early deaths because of diesel emissions? Far more deaths can be attributed to all kinds of every day things then that.
I think significantly altering our atmosphere is a bad idea and I like clean air and all but that statistic isn't compelling in the least.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
as the leading cause of premature death in the EU.
I'm talking abortions idiot.... yeah... 5k ain't shit compared to the monthly mass murder of humans due to some dumb whore who hadn't heard of a condom, birth control, iud or just keeping her filthy disease spreading legs closed.
Nope, murder baby, activate!
Without agreeing to or objecting to the specific number of deaths per year attributable to cheating on environmental testing compliance, it would appear that Brad Kuhn (former Exec. Dir. of the Free Software Foundation, current Distinguished Technologist at the Software Freedom Conservancy) was right in his article "Software Freedom Doesn't Kill People, Your Security Through Obscurity Kills People":
This is the time to cite the cheating scandal as a reason why car owners should actually own their car including the complete corresponding software for the car and the software build instructions. We know what happens when the manufacturers are allowed to use the power of a proprietor. It's time we get vehicles that respect our software freedom.
Digital Citizen
There was more than 5 million deaths in the EU in 2015. Life expectancy is like any other optimization problem, to get the most bang for your buck focus on the real bottlenecks.
Diesel isn't the problem, particularly with super-clean fuel. The problem is diesel when there isn't enough oxygen ... for example when accelerating.
If mechanical super chargers are made mandatory the particle emittions problem is eliminated. Add mandatory pre-heaters and AdBlue with a big tank for NOX reduction and it becomes cleaner than gasoline, with better fuel economy to boot -- which means fewer tons of carbon emissions.
Note: Diesel engines benefit from super chargers more than mechanical engines.
The concern to me about figures like this is that it's a guess. They "may" cause 5000 death, or they may not. When people start warning people with possible results and not factual ones. It gives you pause to look at who is coming up with those figures. If they were to say 5000 will die because of excessive diesel emissions that would be more credible but of course they have no ability to make such prediction.
The real reason we have a lot of Diesel cars in Europe is because of taxes.
Gasoline is taxed more than diesel and cars tend to consume more. People are quick to do the maths and opt for the more economical solution, especially those who drive a lot.
Should make a study about Diesel trucks, especially in the US where trucks have barely any emissions restrictions.
... and other vegetable oils...
The inventor mysteriously died while on a ferry or boat or something, and then the petrol industry introduced the filth that they renamed 'diesel', to go in the engines instead of vegetable oils...
Buy a diesel car and modify it to use used vegetable oil, and you'll find it isn't polluting anywhere near as much as if run on 'real' diesel...
Is there anything more useless than a Meta-analysis?
How many times have eggs been bad for you, then good again?
Butter?
Fats?
Etc?
Brought to you by Meta-analysis.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The article seems to mix small particle and NOx emissions in a way that is confusing. These are two very different forms of pollution. It doesn't appear there is a link to the original study, unless I've missed it. I would lean to the microparticle pollution being the cause of the deaths.
I wish that libertarians would, someday, take the trouble to learn some real economics. Maybe take an introductory course in it, why not.
For completeness, I should add that I also wish that conservatives and liberals would take the trouble to learn some real economics.
Ignoring economics when it's inconvenient is a feature of pretty much all political ideologies, not just libertarians. (It's just more annoying with libertarians, because their ignorance is so jarringly at odds with their rhetoric.)
From the study: "About half of these cases could have been avoided if these vehicles would in real driving emit no more than the EU limit value". "These vehicles" are _all_ LDDV (light duty diesel vehicles) currently being used in Europe. But less than 10% of these vehicles contain "Euro 6" engines which claim to emit less NOx than the current EU limit value. 90% were sold when the limit was significantly higher.
Of course it would be nice if all diesel cars currently on the street would obey the current EU limit. But for 90% this is not required legally - so You can attribute only a fraction of these 5000 premature deaths to dieselgate.
Its even worse than that. NOx reacts with Methane to remove it from the atmosphere, and Methane is much MUCH worse that CO2 with regards to greenhouse effects.
News flash: oxygen reacts with methane to remove it from the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides are 0.00003% of the atmosphere. Oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. Putting more nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere has a negative effect on health, but doesn't reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere enough to notice.
Estimates vary, however the accepted figure appears to be that the net effect of global diesel use is 20% net cooling effect.
Another news flash: making shit up really isn't a substitute for science.
So yes, Diesel contributes to global cooling! Climate change! Disaster!
To repeat: making shit up really isn't a substitute for science.
(Also, lightning creates about the same amount of NOx as small vehicles, and both are much less than shipping, aircraft, or heavy industry..)
Lightning produces some nitrogen oxides. Specifically, "over the United States lightning accounts for only about 5 percent of the total U.S. nitrogen oxide annual emissions and about 14 percent of the total emissions in July."
And lightning-produced nitrogen oxides are randomly distributed through the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides produced by automobiles are concentrated where the most automobiles are, which coincidentally happens to be where people live. Lightning-produced nitrogen oxides are important to global atmospheric chemistry, but they're not a major player in pollution. https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqne...
Or all those resulting from the government-imposed "War on Fat"... Why, shouldn't it be criminal to even produce the murderous butter, much less offer it to children?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Perhaps you don't remember this far back, but "global cooling" actually was the widely hyped fear back in the 1960s and part of the 1970s.
No, it wasn't. That claim is something deniers say all the time, but it just isn't true. Here, for example, is the American Meteorological Society: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
I know a lot of people today (many of whom were born in the 1980s or even the 1990s!) will wrongly claim that it was only "the media" pushing those claims back then, but the media was just reporting on what those in various scientific fields were claiming.
I was born in the 1950s, and you are wrong.
It wasn't until into the 1970s that the "global warming" hype really started up.
Wrong again. Here's the American Institute of Physics's history of Global Warming: https://history.aip.org/climat... -- the effect has been known for well over a century.
I remember the greenhouse effect being discussed in my science classes back in high school. Of course, back then it was "here's an effect that, if we keep on burning fossil fuels, might be measurable sometime by the 1990s or 2000" (which seemed impossibly far in the future back then.) Well, guess what: we kept on burning fossil fuels, the 1990s and then 2000 came, and the effect was measurable.
When it became clear by the late 1990s that we weren't really seeing any significant warming, the name was changed again to the much vaguer "climate change".
Wrong, and wrong. We were seeing significant warming by the late 1990s (check the data), and the name was changed by the Bush administration in order to get people less excited about the effect.
This is convenient, because it allows any normal variation in the Earth's dynamic, chaotic, and unpredictable weather systems to be claimed to be evidence of this alleged "climate change".
Now, on that one I'll agree with you: it annoys me when people attribute weather events to global warming. No single weather event, no hot summer in one location, no warm winter in another location, can be particularly attributed to global warming. Global warming is real, and is well understood-- but it is a long-term, global phenomenon. It is not a local thing.
I was replying to both the parent (first comment) and also your comment on it (second comment).
I did assume that slashdotters recognize the doubled quote-bar to show when it is the grandparent being quoted and commented on, and the single quote bar showing that it is the immediately preceding comment being quoted and commented on. Possibly some newer slashdotters in fact don't understand the quote protocol, but they can glance upward to see who said what.
I suppose I could have made two separate comments, but since the two were immediately adjacent, one comment doesn't fork the threads quite as badly.
In the short run, yes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Huh. Wow. Having been there, _I_ thought Europe's biggest mortality factors were the poor personal hygiene, germany's now-infrequent putsches, insufficient heating/airconditioning (seasonal, mostly France), Italy's water, and terrorists. (stayed-away from spain's food, and belgium in general).
If the results of your study is less than your margin of error you are probably wasting your time.
An older story from 500K, back when the US was in peak Climate Alarmisim.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/30/diesel-emissions-deaths-europe-ee/
At the end of the day the only thing that this latest study proves is that you can still literally make anything say anything with the right kind of half baked study. Especially when you take into account that a lot of EU nations use way more diesel powered personal vehicle than the US and other nation states or blocks do.
Please check other causes of death.
The numbers mentioned here for diesel cars are nowhere near those.
Also the study fails to mention the benefits of diesel cars that outweigh insignificant death numbers.
5000 in Europe, that is over 742 million people or so. (see wikipedia)
With how many dieing from other things? smoking? bad diets? falling down the stairs? pills abuse? alcohol? cancer?
You get the idea.
How many lives are saved per yer simply due to modern technology. Trucks bring products to build generating stations that provide electricity that allows for advanced research into medicines, fresh food available all the time, cars allow deathly ill people to reach hospitals in time before they die, refrigeration keeps people from getting sick, cell phones allow you to call for help when you're in danger, everything we take for granted as simple "creature comforts" are actually prolonging our lives. You know, modern society. I wonder what the number of ((lives modern society saves) - 5000) is? Or rather, what percentage of (lives modern saved by society) is this horrible number 5000. I wonder how many zeros would come after the decimal place before the significant figures start.
More sky-is-falling, flat-earth bullshit from liberals who would rather have us live in mud huts and bathe in our own filth than have a modern free society.
Contribute To Over 5,000 Premature Rapings a Year In Just One Country In Europe, Says Study.
You'd think the "world is overpopulated" bunch would love this! With 5,000 per year, along with the other deaths, the overpopulation problem will resolve itself!!!
Just a small blip compared to all the deaths currently being caused by carbon dioxide and global warming. Nothing to see here, folks.
Diesel engines have saved more than 1.2 billion lives annually by transporting desperately needed goods and supplies across the globe!