# Evidence collecting that particulate air pollution causes brain damage?



## woodgeek (Jun 26, 2015)

Specifically, diesel exhaust, not wood smoke.

http://grist.org/science/does-air-pollution-cause-alzheimers-and-parkinsons/


----------



## moey (Jun 26, 2015)

Im inclined to believe that long term pollution is harmful and causes brain issues. Its just what kills you first which makes it relevant or irrelevant. My father has Parkinsons diagnosed in his early 60s worked in a forge plant for 20+ years coincidence probably not.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 26, 2015)

I look at it like this....  Everyone dies, some sooner than others bu ti's inevitable so might as well enjoy it while you can.  sex can kill you too if you have a weak heart but that don't stop people....

I quit worrying about 'what if' a long time ago.


----------



## begreen (Jun 26, 2015)

If there is a correlation between diesel fumes and this horrible disease then folks living near airports and freeways are getting a lot of exposure. Given the dramatic increase in Alzheimers and the huge cost to society I think finding and addressing root causes is very worthwhile.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 26, 2015)

The sulfur content of diesel has been mandated lower over the last several years....I wonder what this does (if anything) to particulate production.

I thought it interesting that this form of pollution has only been tracked for ~15 years, making it hard to study long-term effects..we don't know what people were exposed to historically.

I agree with the sentiment SCF, death comes for all of us...but when it comes, I would like to still have my brain intact.  I'm attached to it, you might say.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Jun 26, 2015)

There's probably some effect. How much? Well, the article doesn't help answer that question. I've never been a fan of Mother Jones because this sort of reporting is common with them:



> Autopsies of the brains of people who lived in highly contaminated areas have turned up traces of pollution and corresponding brain trauma."



They then follow with no discussion at all of how the highly contaminated exposures compare to typical levels, but start grabbing disparate pieces of research that they imply are linked into a dire bigger picture. This includes anecdotes like the MIT chemist measuring the fire trucks and saying "we're getting hammered" to describe a couple minutes of exposure to what firefighters and truck drivers spend much of their career exposed to, and yet leave medical researchers with scant evidence of clear harm.

Not to mention, it's also highly relevant to know if he was being alarmed by readings from fire trucks built in 2011, and subject to the 2010 diesel emissions standards or even trucks that are subject to the pre-2008 standards.

Looking at the reference for the main study in question, the authors chose a small sample from Mexico City specifically because of the abnormally high pollution levels there. That actually makes sense to me - figure out if there is an effect at levels where you're more likely to find it, then try to see at how low of exposures you can still find the effect.

Their report indicates the average exposure to PM2.5 size particulates in Mexico City is over 20 micrograms per cubic meter. The US standard is 15, and most areas have significantly lower concentrations than that.

I occasionally correspond in another forum with a medical researcher (separate from the USC person mentioned in the article) who is doing some related experiments with mice to understand exhaust exposure effects. They were interested in effects on the heart and blood vessels, but they were surprised to find ways the pollution exposure reduced resistance to certain cancers. It was a well received paper, but he made clear that they were using mice bred specifically to be highly susceptible to cancer and piping exhaust directly into their cages continuously. It was the same sort of technique - look for problems where you expect to find them, then work downwards from there.

So I think the research seems to be on solid ground, but this specific article overplays the significance of it.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Jun 26, 2015)

I want to add that the map of particulate pollution levels in the country was a good inclusion in the article. In particular, where you see high levels of exposure tend to be agricultural regions and the states that burn a large amount of coal. This is no surprise, as both of these activities are, according to the EPA, significantly larger sources of particulate matter exposure than vehicles. That's according to a 2001 inventory (I'm sure there's a newer version out there, but I didn't find it yet). As mentioned before, more strict emissions limits have been implemented since then. That includes not just engines, but also sources like construction dust. You may have seen construction workers spraying firehouses around bulldozers or similar work - the reason for that is usually to comply with dust regulations.

I'd imagine other folks here would be somewhat relieved to know that home heating was only estimated to account for about 6% of US PM2.5 emissions. As we've discussed many times on this forum, the big problem there isn't the stoves currently on the market, but older stoves, and especially bad burning practices.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 26, 2015)

The EU and the Fed rolled in the Tier 4 mandates for diesel engines late last year.  That eliminates all particulates and oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust,  Actually, the intake air is dirtier than the exhaust now.  Also in the mandates is a sunset provsion that bars engine manufacturers from producing reman pre tier 4 engines and replacement parts after, I think 2020. 

 However, because the Tier 4 engines and their related emissions comonents are much more expensive (an average of $20,000.00 per unit) and they aren't nearly as efficient as pre Tier 4 engines, plus the engine lifespan is shorter, the operational costs are being passed on to you, the consumer in the form of higher freight rates.  Nothing is free.  You always pay one way or another.  It's the 'trickle down effect'.....

BTW all diesel fuel sold in this country is ULSD and has been for at least 10 years.  Less than 10 PPM sulfur.  It would be nice if the largest industrialized nation in the world followed suit but China cares less and we keep buying their produced goods so it is, what it is.

I just happen to work in the industry.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2015)

Whatever they have changed I like it. It's a huge improvement. You can note it right away when following our school buses. Before you'd get a headache from the fumes and belching smoke when they started off. Now they are clean burners.


----------



## flyingcow (Jun 27, 2015)

begreen said:


> Whatever they have changed I like it. It's a huge improvement. You can note it right away when following our school buses. Before you'd get a headache from the fumes and belching smoke when they started off. Now they are clean burners.
> 
> View attachment 159173




I agree. but i'ved always thought buses,garbage trucks,dump trucks, etc should have a vertical stack that clears the top of the truck. Especially in cities. BUT that beings said, more class 8(trailer trucks) are going back to what we refer as the grass burner exhaust. Single exhaust pipe, under truck, just like a car. 

In the trucking industry, you don't see many belching black smoke anymore. But as stated above, it comes with a cost to consumers. 20k extra in cost of trucks plus added empty weight. We burn more fuel per mile with the new technology, but they are gaining some on that.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2015)

I was reading about the next gen trucks coming to meet new EPA mandates. The article pointed out that the tech is there and that some significant efficiency gains are not all that hard. For example, replacing large slabs of side mirrors with cameras made a notable reduction in wind resistance and improve mileage. They pointed out that sooner or later hybridization will also be coming to big rigs too.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/making-trucks-efficient-isnt-actually-hard/


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 27, 2015)

Always keep in mind that the more 'high tech' the more expensive and that expense is 'trickled' down to you...The consumer.  I just got in from Indiana a gew minutes ago, I came back with a set of doubles.  I'd never trust a camera in place of a mirror with the idiot 4 wheelers out there...Most mirrors on big trucks toady have an aerodynamic shield anyway.  Mirrors contribute little in the way of parasitic drag, I don't believe it's measureable.

With tier 4 final engines, we went from around 6mpg on ULSD diesel to about 3.5. so the operating cost adjusts forr that.  I get to drive them but I'm actually a safety and compliance officer for a large private carrier.  Sometimes I have to retreive one, like today.

Far as new school buses, they share the same technology and cost to purchase and operate plus the lifespan between overhauls is shorter so the bottom line is more expense which you, as a taxayer, pays for (juust like increased freight costs)....  nothing is free, not even the air you breathe, though it is cleaner than a decade ago.

My issue with all of it simply is, we all live on the same planet but Pacific Rim countries have no intention of complying with any 'clean air' mandates so what exactly is the point?  Not like we here in the USA live under a glass enclosed enviroment, the crap that China spews into the atmosphere daily, comes here as well.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 27, 2015)

What I'm saying is...  At what expense comes the benefits.  You have to weigh the benefits against the cost.  If this country was 'non profit' it wouldn't matter but it's not.  Only the gummit and churches are....lol


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 27, 2015)

The EPA seems to think that mandated mpg improvements to large trucks will pay for themselves in less than 2 years in fuel savings.

As for China, their particulates and smog don't reach us here.  As for CO2, their current per capita emissions are less than half of ours, and while they are projected to go up before they go back down, they will peak below our current usage.  

Last year they managed to drop their emissions by roughly what the UK produces in a year.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 27, 2015)

Per woodgeek, post: 1949181, member: 4013"

**The EPA seems to think that mandated mpg improvements to large trucks will pay for themselves in less than 2 years in fuel savings.

*The EPA 'thinks' a lot of things are good like government subsidized ethanol and E15 pump gas, neither of which are real world good.  Just because the EPA 'thinks' it don't make it real world possible.....  Considering real time components add about 20 grand to the vehicle cost (and some of those components are considered consumables like soot traps and injection nozzles), I don't see a 2 year payback at all, but then I work in the industry so what do I know......*

*They run clean, in fact today I was driving a 2015 Western Star Conventional set back axle single bunk with a 550 horsepower, 2300 foot pound torque Cummins ISX-C coupled to a 13 speed overdrive pulling 2 trailers (empty) running 62 mph (70 speed limit) and averaging (on the fuel computer) 3.4 mpg and using DEF as well.  Sure the exhaust stacks are clean but it's not efficient at all.  In fact the engines have to rum so hot (to consume all the bad things the EPA has mandated as pollution), that the engine is lucky to last 500,000 miles.  500K miles might sound like a lot in automobile terms but when the price of admission is $130,000.00 per issue, 500K isn't enough.*

**As for China, their particulates and smog don't reach us here.

*Care to substantiate that with hard facts?  Winds aloft carry pollutants thousands of miles, thats a proven fact.  It was widely documented that the radiatioon from the Japanese power plant crippled by the tsunami reached the United States, why not Chinese pollution?  This 'orb' we all reside on isn't that large really.*

**As for CO2, their current per capita emissions are less than half of ours, and while they are projected to go up before they go back down, they will peak below our current usage.

*Again, hard facts, not the Chinese purported 'facts'  Everyone knows about the Chinese and their 'approved' formadahyde laced drywall....,,  and lets not mention the toothpaste or the tainted pet treats............*

**Last year they managed to drop their emissions by roughly what the UK produces in a year.[/quote]

*Says who, the Chinese?  I don't believe them for a second.  I do know who the largest overseas buyer of Bit coal is and I'll give you one guess...... (hint, it's not the UK.....).*

*Finally, happen to know why there are very few cast iron foundries in the United States anymore?  Hint, EPA mandates again.  Guess where the casting is done now or at least the bulk of it....  (not the UK either...)*

What looks good on paper or on a spreadsheet compiled by some bean counter with no real world knowledge or experience is oftentimes hogwash but prints well in goverment manuals.  The EPA is the king of the hill in that respect.

Like I said early on, sometimes the price of admission exceeds the benefit.

I have no issue with clean air but I think everyone should be on board, not just a select few (nations).  I don't fall into the group that buys all the government hype, never did, especially in the venue I work in.  I get to see the good, the bad and the ugly and I don't see much good in the tier 4 mandates unless those mandates are globally imposed.

Take it for what it is and enjoiy your dinner.  I have to go eat mine now.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2015)

Good casting is still done in the US and a lot of good casting is still done in Europe in Belgium, Denmark, Norway, UK, Poland, Slovakia, etc..  VC is an excellent foundry casting parts for many stove lines besides their own. Travis has been casting for years, but mostly irrigation pump parts now because its more profitable. Stoves are a small part of the casting industry. There are lots of casting plants in the US  for motors and auto parts, etc.. China has been getting a foothold in some areas, mostly due to price, but then it loses too. For example Lopi switched to European casting from Chinese for the Cape Cod due to quality inconsistencies.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2015)

Note that Chinese particulates (and Gobi desert dust) does reach the west coast of the US. It's actually becoming an increasing source of concern.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 27, 2015)

begreen said:


> Good casting is still done in the US and a lot of good casting is still done in Europe in Belgium, Denmark, Norway, UK, Poland, Slovakia, etc..  VC is an excellent foundry casting parts for many stove lines besides their own. Travis has been casting for years, but mostly irrigation pump parts now because its more profitable. (Stoves are a small part of the casting industry.) China has been getting a foothold in some areas, mostly due to price, but then it loses too. For example Lopi switched to European casting from Chinese for the Cape Cod.


 
I was about to enjoy cantonese carryout....  There is a tremendous cantonese beanery with call and get menu in the next town btw.  My wifve picked it up, she hates to cook on Saturday....

Anyway, I'm not referencing stoves or small stuff, how about large castings like engine blocks or large parts....  China is the undisputed cost leader in that venue because they ignore the pollution mandates and can be very cost effective especially paying peasants wages.

Oh, and the castings on my (will be sitting cold this winter with $1.00 propane) USSC were made in China as were the drive motors and all the electronic components and most likely the computer I'm posting on...and yours too.

Now I'll go eat......  Smells good, less filling..............


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm more of a Szechuan guy myself.....enjoy your dinner.  

I'm not disputing your statements about emission controls and their costs.  Increasing truck mpg....I have read multiple analyses that quote industry sources that say it is both possible and has a decent payback.

I too am very skeptical of Chinese economic reports.  

Detecting pollution from Asia in the US, however, is different from saying that smog in LA is due to Chinese emissions.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2015)

IIRC correctly it was particulates of a certain size that are making it across the Pacific on the Jet Stream. Coal emissions and Gobi sand dust were the two sources I remember. I'll try to find the article.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 28, 2015)

on particulates the weather sat pic. is African Sahara aerosols. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




illustrates wide spread movement pretty well. this via Dr. Ryan Maue


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 28, 2015)

one more


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 28, 2015)

article goes to pic above http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/pollution_measure.html old stuff goes back to 2003. article dated 2008


----------



## jebatty (Jun 28, 2015)

> The EPA seems to think that mandated mpg improvements to large trucks will pay for themselves in less than 2 years in fuel savings.
> 
> *Considering real time components add about 20 grand to the vehicle cost (and some of those components are considered consumables like soot traps and injection nozzles), I don't see a 2 year payback at all, ...*


False economy to look at payback unless the external benefits also are considered. The health benefits of reduced particulates are well documented. $20 grand extra for a truck is small potatoes to pay for reduced particulates.

One semi carries 40,000 lbs of freight. That's $0.50 per pound per load for the added cost to the vehicle. Assume one load per day (could be more or less), 250 loads per year, at least 5 years on the engine, and the cost is $0.0004 per pound of freight. Very small potatoes as the price for higher quality of life.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 28, 2015)

Your sack of potatoes and mine are 2 different sacks.  My point is (and you ignored it), why aren't the Chinese accountable.  Thats pollution and we get it here......  Go over there and explain it to them.  But you don't come back alive....  Bet you buy their products though.....  (I do to candidly, in some areas, there is no choice).

I see you have those high buck panels in your sig pic.  I fully understand your sentiments but they aren't mine.

It all distills down to 'at what cost' and being an armchair examiner, you don't really have a 'real world' grasp on that, only what you read and hear not what you actuall deal with, hands on.

I read and hear lots and I take about 25% of it as truth and the rest is hogwash.


----------



## Grisu (Jun 29, 2015)

SidecarFlip said:


> Your sack of potatoes and mine are 2 different sacks.  My point is (and you ignored it), why aren't the Chinese accountable.  Thats pollution and we get it here......  Go over there and explain it to them.



That would be like Chris Christie going there and telling them to eat less. Maybe they would find that amusing but I would not bet on it. 


> But you don't come back alive....



Millions of foreigners go there and come back safely. There are parts in the US I would be more concerned about my safety. 


> I see you have those high buck panels in your sig pic.  I fully understand your sentiments but they aren't mine.



We figured...


> It all distills down to 'at what cost' and being an armchair examiner, you don't really have a 'real world' grasp on that, only what you read and hear not what you actuall deal with, hands on.



The real cost are the labor and material invested in a product. Those we have to weigh against the benefits like improved health. As long as the material input is similar or even less and we have unemployment we advance our well-being without giving up anything. Unemployed workers sitting at home is a real cost for society. 


> I read and hear lots and I take about 25% of it as truth and the rest is hogwash.



Too bad it is the wrong 25%.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 29, 2015)

Too bad it is the wrong 25%.

Again, thats your biased opinion, not mine.


----------



## begreen (Jun 29, 2015)

It would be nice if there was an unbiased opinion, but apparently that's not going to happen and facts don't seem to matter. That's all folks. G'night Gracie.


----------

