SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amsterdam's head of transport has announced plans to ban petrol and diesel cars in the city by 2030.
The clean air action plan aims to make the Dutch capital a "world leader in emission-free transport".
Transport chief Sharon Dijksma said residents "live a year less on average due to dirty air" and that the plan should "prolong the health of the average Amsterdammer by three months."
But the plan has already incited strong reactions in the Netherlands with one motoring organisation branding it "bizarre" and wondering how normal people would afford electric cars.
The plan, which would be applied 20 years before the Paris Agreement aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions, would require up to 23,000 electric charging points by 2025. The city currently has 3,000.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:00PM (13 children)
Except it doesn't cause cancer. Emphysema sure, but if car related pollution were cancer causing you'd see higher than normal rates of lung cancer in cities such as LA.
Real true fact here, your body is absolutely amazing at filtering out trash. Futhermore chemicals don't cause cancer. Cancer causes cancer and chemicals are only involved because they can sometimes activate the faulty DNA you already carried and your immune system subsequently fails to keep it in check.
People think cancer is some kind of external disease. It isn't. It is literally your body attempting to be immortal.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3610726/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:03PM
Replying to self because I was missing a citation on the rates of cancer
https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html [cdc.gov]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:30PM (6 children)
Thanks for the correction.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @02:42PM (5 children)
No worries. In truth I was being pedantic. General health is poorer in cities with higher levels of air pollution and that is well supported. What isn't supported is that pollution causes lung cancer. If you look at that map, you'll see that cancer deaths are per capita, way higher in the less air polluted states, and it is absolutely lowest in Utah where the inversion traps so much smog in the valleys in the winter that we are literally told not to go outside for weeks at a time.
So if you had said "Perhaps it is in the general interest that they don't die of lung infections, emphysema or what not", I would have totally supported it.
As the child of a family of down winders I've gotten a bit sensitive on the subject of cancer and it's causes because there is so much misinformation out there.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:08PM (4 children)
Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes. - Cancer in Humans [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:42PM (2 children)
Look, this last link is much better I'll grant you that. But you're still relying on the conclusions of a study rather than the data it's sourcing.
If you look at the data, the link with cancer is tenuous at best.
I'm not saying that pollution is healthy. It's pretty easy to step outside in heavy smog or during inversion season, take a deep breath and instantly realize it was a mistake. You will get sick from it. But it isn't going to cause cancer.
PM2.5 is particulate matter at 2.5 microns and smaller. These are generally speaking, abrasive to soft tissues such as those in the lung. It is long term exposure to this abrasive, constantly killing off healthy lung cells that gives the cancerous ones a better chance to grow. It isn't causative, it is correlative. You had lung cells and some of those lung cells were cancerous, i.e. immortal or at least much harder to kill. Being the survivors of constant abrasion they then go on to dominate the scene by virtue of the fact they are harder to kill.
The PM2.5 topic does bring up something I hadn't considered previously though. California has much tougher emissions requirements even though cities like LA have much worse air quality overall. Therefore it is likely the reason you see lower lung cancer rates in California vs the east coast is directly related to those tougher emissions requirements. Not sure how this holds though considering Utah has relaxed standards vs Cali, yet in Utah the lung cancer rate is much, much lower than Cali. Yet the per capita rate of smoking in Utah is lower than anywhere else in the country and therefore both the first hand and second hand smoke rate is lower. So I would guess that makes up the difference but that is only a guess and I say that as person who is well over 40 with a 30 year long, pack a day habit. Ergo my conclusion...
Car exhaust is a terrible health problem, but is not what causes lung cancer. Cancer causes cancer meaning when your cells decided to suddenly become immortal, other things may have helped it along but they didn't cause it. Unless of course they are mutagenics like say nicotine. But that's a whole other discussion.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:59PM (1 child)
Function of PM2.5 in the pathogenesis of lung cancer and chronic airway inflammatory diseases [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @08:36PM
I give up, you win...
Car exhaust causes cancer... In mice :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:21AM
"Cell Cycle is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering a range of cell biology related contents. It was founded in 2002..."
Just pointing out that reputation and longevity are hard to earn in science. The Wiki page is full of hard sell... smells a bit whiffy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:03PM (4 children)
Sulfur Dioxide absolutely DOES cause cancer. [lung.org]
WHO: 'Diesel exhaust fumes cancerous' [www.nhs.uk]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:13PM (3 children)
First link is to the American Lung Association and describes ill health effects of sulfur dioxide poisoning both acute and chronic, but doesn't list cancer as one of them.
Second link is to a summary from the national health service in the UK, but it is quoting an article from the Daily Mail which says the WHO says that the WHO has decided to reclassify Diesel Fumes from potentially carcinogenic to simply carcinogenic.
Quoting the link you supplied...
So... um yeah, I don't recommend firing up your diesel engine and huffing the tail pipe. I also wouldn't sit in an enclosed room with a running diesel engine. But if you have lung cancer it's unlikely it's due to that semi dropping off a trailer at your local Walmart.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:35PM (2 children)
Fair point on the first link, I probably should have checked it more thoroughly.
The second link stands, though, diesel fumes cause cancer according to the World Health Organization.
It's actually the PM2.5 (very fine particulate matter) that causes the cancer, not the sulfur dioxide.
Although, the SO2 does react with the atmosphere to create PM so it's not helping. [epa.gov]
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:44PM (1 child)
Do you realize how ironic this conversation is considering your handle?
According to the same link, the WHO also claims sawdust and sunshine cause cancer.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:54PM
You've never heard of skin cancer?
And, wood dust IS a carcinogen. [cancer.gov]