NBC News: Lawsuit claims subjects in EPA trial inhaled dangerous fumes

Our story is currently (Friday afternoon) the lead story at the NBC affiliate, WNCN (NBC-176) in Raleigh, NC. Video on TV at 6 & 7 pm ET.

About these ads

26 responses to “NBC News: Lawsuit claims subjects in EPA trial inhaled dangerous fumes

  1. Don’t they mean “INHALED?”

  2. What horrible reporting. PM2.5 is EPA shorthand for Particulate Matter, 2.5 micron and below. Diesel exhaust has thousands of hideously toxic compounds including benzene and many other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Which was it, dust or Diesel? If EPA used Dieselexhaust, they should be prosecuted, and I would happily testify against them, with my background in respiratory protection.

  3. Why would anyone knowingly willingly be exposed to Diesel exhaust? I hold my breath when I am behind a Diesel, as should everyone. The uncatalyzed exhaust is more than 1000 times more toxic than gasoline exhaust. Whose brilliant idea was this? The toxicology of PMA’s is well-documented. Rather hard to believe that any human-subjects-research approval board would have OK’d this. My sister is on one at Johns-Hopkins, maybe she could help look into it.

  4. PAH’s, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, sorry

  5. Thank you mr Milloy, for exposing this. Whilst i seriously doubt any real harm comes from inhaling air mixed with diesel fumes even for extended periods I do see how this goes a long way to shake the EPA’s trustworthiness as an agency an can help to derail the de-carbonization drive which is economical suicide.
    I wish you much success but sadly the image of Don Quichote comes to mind nonetheless.

  6. You seriously doubt it? Try sucking on the exhaust pipe of a city bus, see how long you last. The largest judgment for wrongful death ever was $100 million against Monsanto, Chocolate Bayou plant, for benzene exposure. Diesel exhaust is full of benzene. Diesels should be banned, except for stationary applications, without the catalytic converters that make the new Clean Diesels so great.

    • “Danger, Will Robinson, danger!!!”

      Take a breathe already (pun intended).

      Putting your mouth to any exhaust pipe will kill.

      Diesel technology continues to improve with catalysts, SCRs, particulate filters, turbo charging, etc.

      The regs on diesel engines (both stationary and mobile) are very tight and getting tighter.

      Only a fool would ban wonderful diesel technology that prolongs and enhances people’s lives who benefit from all the goods these engines are able to transport over long ranges so efficiently.

      Gasoline and NG simply will never transport what we need to live.

      This is most especially so for third world nations.

      So quit hyperventilating (pun intended again), and try to consider in your thinking the major health BENEFITS enjoyed because of wonderful diesel technology.

      BTW – EPA claims tens of thousands of deaths each year due to ambient PM2.5.

      The owner of this web blog (Mr. Milloy) continues to ask EPA to show us one single body.

      After all, if thousands are dying, surely thy can produce at least one body.

      These deaths only exist in EPA’s models.

    • Careful, my friend, let’s not go overboard. This isn’t about global warming, or other standard topics on this site which are significantly oversold. This is something concrete and well researched. The health of effects of HAPs are well known and not in controversy. Similarly, excessive soot particulate is known to manifest as black lung, particularly in chain smokers and coal miners. That’s also non-controversial. What the EPA is trying to do is claim health effects on a very low level of exposure, which IS controversial.

      Please also read Mike’s ending comment. He wants to ban uncatalyzed diesels, not trucks, trains, or boats with proper emissions controls. Also, Mikey, you should know that diesels without emissions controls are effectively banned in the vast majority of circumstances and actions.

      • “The health of effects of HAPs are well known and not in controversy.”

        That is a very debatable statement. Especially now that health physics LNT dose-response models are in question.

        “What the EPA is trying to do is claim health effects on a very low level of exposure, which IS controversial.”

        This is precisely my point to Mr. Moon’s rant.

        “When you see a big truck spew a cloud of black soot, just run away, do not breathe it, whether your name is Will Robinson or not. And whether you cook on a wood stove or not. Goodness, nothing toxic is ever in the air???”

        It’s all about the dose, which appears to elude his reasoning.

        • Touche, but diesel exhaust has a high level of concentration of compounds with an already low effects level. Carbon Monoxide if nothing else. As I mentioned on a prior thread, if the EPA’s air blower failed, this would be equivalent to a popular method of suicide.

  7. Yeah right. I lived in Praque which had at that time the worst fumes ever. In winter time it got so bad, what with all the stoves burning, that the air actually scorched your lungs and made your eyes water.

    Still lot’s of very lively people there with no special lung disease clusters.
    Theory and reality. And what some weirdo american jury awarded means zilch except a distinct lack of reason.

  8. Well, let’s have it. Catalyzed Diesel or not? Once again, hugely significant facts neglected. Stoves do not resemble Diesel. I am a monster conservative, but mobile Diesels without converters are toxic, look it up, don’t count on me…..

    • Stoves running browncoal AND uncatalysed ancient russian diesels and uncatalysed ancient merc’s etc in a town with very narrow streets.

      Not to speak of the badly tuned russian petrol vehicles.
      Reality and theory meet. No enormous cluster of lung afflictions in the Praque area. Theory falsified, human is more resilient then assumed in the theories.

  9. Fume is a solid particulate typically generated by welding, usually metallic. “Fumes” usually aren’t fumes at all, but vapors. I did specify that new Clean Diesels are much safer. When you see a big truck spew a cloud of black soot, just run away, do not breathe it, whether your name is Will Robinson or not. And whether you cook on a wood stove or not. Goodness, nothing toxic is ever in the air???

  10. ‘It’s all about the dose.” Benzene gives people Leukemia. Once you get it, you got it. How was any of this a rant? Who would defend Diesels? I did not make one controversial statement. “No enormous cluster of lung afflictions.” Just how big was it? Diesel is in all cities, more in some than others. In ShenZhen some days you cannot see to the end of the block. The dose when you follow a large vehicle, particularly one with a street-level tail pipe, can be substantial. If EPA exposed subjects to uncatalyzed Diesel exhaust they are idiots, and I will happily testify against them.

    • “Who would defend Diesels?”

      I just did.

      Diesel power has enriched people’s welfare by enabling transportation of bulk quantities of goods across country.

      To transport the amount of materials we currently do across country with gasoline is not feasible.

      Add to that, modern diesel pollution control technology is now plenty clean.

  11. Once and for all, was this catalyzed Diesel exhaust or not? Some slow readers on here. Most Diesel engines are not protected by catalytic converters, put out clouds of toxic smoke. Anyone who would say they don’t has not looked it up.

    • And once again my response: catalyzed or uncatalyzed it does not matter. Not in today’s America.

      Today’s turbocharger technology vs. yesterday’s naturally aspirated diesel engines results in much higher degree of combustion completeness. That includes soot (opacity) and VOCs (e.g., benzene).

      Nevertheless, catalysts are required on top of turbocharger produced exhaust.

      Furthermore, diesel particulate filters are required on top of turbocharger produced exhaust.

      If you are seeing “black smoke”, you are seeing a vehicle completely not operating up to the standards of recent technology improvements.

      Your argument is a straw man.

      No one is going back to non-turbocharged diesel engines.

      No one is going back to uncatalyzed exhaust.

      We diesel enthusiasts welcome these technologies.

      We also welcome SCR technology because it gets rid of exhaust gas recirculation which produces an even better burn and more h.p.

      Thank God for the blessing of diesel combustion engines.

  12. And one more thing, even though this poster largely agreed with me, just so the truth is in front of all of us: Black Lung is caused by the quartz fraction in coal dust, not soot. The carbon dust is not respirable, goes down and comes right back up one way or the other. Silica, now, you don’t want to breathe much of that, as in quartz….

  13. I only know one thing, uncatalyzed diesels have been common in european cars since 40 years or more. Hardly any regulation until recently.
    IF diesel fumes are of that high toxicity levels as claimed large clusters of diesel fume related diseases would have been visible in Europe by now.
    Admittedly i didn’t do a full out study but a superficial glance at health statistics of major European nations don’t show this to be the case.

    The biggest drop in inhalation linked diseases was cigarette smoking which clearly shows up as a signal. For the rest not much.

  14. To quote my “esteemed” opponent, it is the dose. Avoid high concentrations, as found behind large Diesel vehicles. When the black cloud dissipates, the dose goes down, and risk goes down. Not to zero, but to a much lower level. Cancer occurs to humans in all environments, and has many natural causes. It has some artificial ones too, including PAH’s as has been well documented.
    The story here is not whether uncatalyzed Diesels should or should not be banned. Arguably after years of recommending the proper respiratory protection equipment for thousands of different environments I am not pleased about Diesel smoke up close and personal. Regardless, it is not safe, and the EPA voluntarily exposing subjects to it is sense-free. Leukemia is no laughing matter.

    • I prefer it to be the proof that the EPA is full of it with their emission standards. It proves that in reality they don’t believe themselves it’s actually as harmful as they say. If that were the case they’d never ever have done the experiments. According to their official standpoint, it’s so lethal it’s like testing people with asbestos to see if they get lung cancer

      Sure, the dose counts. If you drink a couple of liters of distilled water your brain explodes, but that is beyond a rare occurrence.
      Same for getting actually ill from fumes. You need some really serious long term inhalation of fumes to get sick. Also a rare occurrence.

  15. This discussion seems to be missing the point.
    EITHER the EPA deliberately exposed people to substances they knew to be dangers, just to see what would happen (not unlike the pioneering experiments of Josef Mengelé),
    OR the EPA has been deliberately lying to Congress and the world about the dangers of inhaling PM2.5 or diesel exhaust.
    Either way, the EPA cannot be trusted, and responsible decision-makers among the EPA and their UNC enablers and co-conspirators and accomplices should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
    Whether they are crimes of criminal negligence or criminal harm to the participants in these studies is irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s