Diesel Exhaust and Underground Miners
TL;DR: This issue includes four papers on the exposure assessment of non-metal miners to diesel exhaust, part of a long-awaited retrospective mortality study conducted by the US National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and known as the diesel exhaust in miners study (DEMS).
Abstract: This issue includes four papers on the exposure assessment of non-metal miners to diesel exhaust, part of a long-awaited retrospective mortality study conducted by the US National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and known as the diesel exhaust in miners study (DEMS). We expect to publish a fifth paper later. In 1989, diesel exhaust was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as Category 2A, a probable carcinogen, based on sufficient laboratory evidence and limited evidence in humans. Since then, there have been more reports of human carcinogenicity (Rogers and Davies, 2005; Lewtas and Silverman, 2010). Planning for DEMS began in 1992, and the papers we now publish report on the detailed quantitative exposure assessment. From early days, DEMS has been subject to a series of legal actions initiated by industry bodies concerned about the methods and implications, which has delayed the publication of these papers. Industry representatives have told us that they expect to send us a response to these papers.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The article argues that DPM meets all six specified evidentiary criteria, any one of which is sufficient for HAP regulation and that regulators’ standards of evidence for denying HAP status to DPM err logically and scientifically, set the evidence bar too high, delay regulation, and allow 21,000 avoidable DPM deaths annually in the U.S.
Abstract: Of 188 government-monitored air toxics, diesel particulate matter (DPM) causes seven times more cancer than all the other 187 air toxics combined, including benzene, lead, and mercury. Yet, DPM is the only air toxic not regulated more stringently under the Clean Air Act, as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). One reason is that regulators use flawed standards of scientific evidence. The article argues (1) that DPM meets all six specified evidentiary criteria, any one of which is sufficient for HAP regulation and (2) that regulators’ standards of evidence for denying HAP status to DPM (no DPM unit-risk estimate, inadequate dose-response data, alleged weak mechanistic data) err logically and scientifically, set the evidence bar too high, delay regulation, and allow 21,000 avoidable DPM deaths annually in the U.S.
5 citations
Cites background from "Diesel Exhaust and Underground Mine..."
...“From early days,” says a prominent journal editor, DPM studies have “been subject to a series of legal actions initiated by industry bodies concerned about the methods and implications, which has delayed the publication of these [DPM] papers” (Ogden, 2010, p. 727)....
[...]
07 Sep 2015
TL;DR: Assessing the ACES-versus-WHO scientific debate about diesel exhaust concludes that because ACES fails to fully assess the worst NTDE-2007 harm and typical exposures to typical subjects, therefore it draws no valid conclusions aboutNTDE- 2007 harm.
Abstract: In 2015 authors of four joint US-government and auto-and-oil-industry studies, ACES, claimed to have done the first comprehensive evaluation of lifetime exposure to new-technology-diesel exhaust (NTDE-2007), so-called “clean diesel” required by US emissions standards for year-2007 and later heavy-duty trucks. ACES claimed to have found no evidence that NTDE-2007 causes lung cancer. However, since at least 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO), International Agency for Research on Cancer, American Public Health Association, and many other scientists say any diesel exhaust, especially diesel particulate matter, causes lung-cancer, cardiovascular, and neurological problems. Who is right about diesel exhaust, ACES or WHO? This question is important both because the US and other governments cite ACES research in their diesel-exhaust standard-setting, and because the auto and oil industries use ACES conclusions to claim new diesel exhaust is virtually harmless. This article (1) begins the task of assessing the ACES-versus-WHO scientific debate. It (2) argues that the ACES research is fatally flawed because it neither studies what it claims nor does so in an unbiased way. Instead the article (3) shows that ACES research (3.1) relies on state-variable biases (in focusing mainly on NO2 and mass, not also on DPM and particle size/ number), and (3.2) exhibits representativeness errors (in using only the healthiest animals, too-small sample sizes, and non-lifetime exposures). Despite some ACES strengths, the article (4) concludes that because ACES fails to fully assess the worst NTDE-2007 harm and typical exposures to typical subjects, therefore it draws no valid conclusions about NTDE-2007 harm.
2 citations
Cites background from "Diesel Exhaust and Underground Mine..."
...“From early days” of diesel research, says a prominent scientific-journal editor, DPM studies have “been subject to a series of legal actions initiated by industry bodies…which has delayed the publication of these [DPM] papers” (Ogden, 2010, p. 727)....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors published Stewart et al. (2012) paper on the evaluation of the exposure assessment methods used in the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (Ogden, 2010), previously published in this journal.
Abstract: We are pleased to publish in this issue Stewart et al’s (2012) paper on the evaluation of the exposureassessment methods used in the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (Ogden, 2010), previously published in this journal (Stewart et al., 2010; Coble et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2010a,b). Like the earlier papers, publication of Stewart et al. (2012) was delayed by legal actions initiated by industry bodies; the paper was accepted by us on 19 February 2011. Papers from this study reporting substantial increases in lung cancer at higher exposures have now been published by Attfield et al. (2012) and Silverman et al. (2012), also after legal delays.
References
More filters
TL;DR: Although the adverse health effects of the gaseous fraction of diesel emissions have been known for sometime, only in the last two decades has research indicated that the particulate component of the diesel exhaust has the potential to induce various health effects.
Abstract: Over the past 115 years the invention of a compression ignition engine by Rudolph Diesel in the 1890s has contributed significantly to the productivity of many nations, owing to the widespread use of larger diesel powered equipment in most industrial activities. The down-side in terms of occupational health has been the exposure of a large number of workers to the complex mixture of toxic, gaseous, adsorbed organics and particulate components found in the raw exhaust emissions. Although the adverse health effects of the gaseous fraction of diesel emissions have been known for sometime, only in the last two decades has research indicated that the particulate component of the diesel exhaust has the potential to induce various health effects. In addition, it is associated with nonhealth aspects such as malodour, visual and nuisance pollution. Diesel exhaust emissions were investigated >20 years by the BOHS Hygiene Standards Committee (BOHS, 1981). The Committee’s terms of reference were;
9 citations