Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Medicine Your Rights Online News

After Legal Fight, NCI Researchers Publish Study Linking Diesel Exhaust, Cancer 196

Posted by timothy
from the the-truth-will-out dept.
ananyo writes "A landmark study involving U.S. miners that links cancer rates to diesel fume exposure has been published after a seventeen-year legal battle with an industry group. A February 27 Slashdot story had reported that lawyers for the mining industry had sent threatening letters to scientific journals advising them against publishing the study. Initiated in 1998, after the first of many legal delays, the study analyzed exposures in detail for more than 12,000 workers while controlling for smoking and other risk factors. In the end, the scientists found that miners faced a threefold risk of lethal lung cancer, and underground workers who were heavily exposed to diesel fumes faced a fivefold risk. The two concluding papers from the study are available in full."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Legal Fight, NCI Researchers Publish Study Linking Diesel Exhaust, Cancer

Comments Filter:
  • Emissions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rullywowr (1831632) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @09:59AM (#39260333)
    I always wondered why many states require passenger cars to pass through strict emissions tests, however it is perfectly OK to have trains, dump trucks, buses, and large vehicles spew columns of dark black diesel exhaust into the sky....

    oh yeah...FIRST!
    • "Heavily exposed" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:10AM (#39260429)
      In fact, most developed countries outside the US, and some states inside, have strict rules on Diesel exhausts. Possibly over-strict given the relative lack of control of gasoline emissions from hot gas-powered trucks.But these people were being heavily exposed. When I worked in Diesel R&D, the engine test cells were carefully extracted and exposure to exhaust was very restricted. And for years many heavy vehicle workshops have tubing to remove exhaust fumes safely. The engine room ventilation systems on motor ships ensure that not only exhaust, but also under-piston and oil fumes, never go near engineering staff.

      You could say that perhaps the industries with perhaps the greatest in-depth knowledge of these engines have taken the greatest precautions against long term exposure of staff.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @02:11PM (#39263903)

        You could say that perhaps the industries with perhaps the greatest in-depth knowledge of these engines have taken the greatest precautions against long term exposure of staff.

        Or you could also say that well trained and educated people are valuable employees and are well protected, while miners are to this day still treated as disposable. Maybe I'm more bitter than you, but I think we're both right.

        • Or you could also say that well trained and educated people are valuable employees and are well protected, while miners are to this day still treated as disposable.

          Not everywhere.

          "The Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 include specific provisions for the operation of diesel engined units in underground mines. Included in these provisions is a requirement to have turbo charged units, and all units rated at 125KW or more, fitted with exhaust treatment devices. The most widely used treatment devices, are catalytic converters in conjunction with ceramic particulate filters."
          J M Torlach
          STATE MINING ENGINEER

          http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/6713.aspx [wa.gov.au]
          http://www [wa.gov.au]

    • Re:Emissions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pla (258480) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:13AM (#39260459) Journal
      I always wondered why many states require passenger cars to pass through strict emissions tests, however it is perfectly OK to have trains, dump trucks, buses, and large vehicles spew columns of dark black diesel exhaust into the sky....

      As the short answer to that, well-maintained big diesel engines have a useful lifetime measured in millions of miles. Decades of use.

      Believe it or not, (most) emissions rules do apply to those vile soot-belchers (at least, the non-road ones); It will just take literally 50 years to cycle through the worst-of-the-worst currently in service.
      • Re:Emissions (Score:5, Informative)

        by Skater (41976) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:22AM (#39260549) Homepage Journal

        I always wondered why many states require passenger cars to pass through strict emissions tests, however it is perfectly OK to have trains, dump trucks, buses, and large vehicles spew columns of dark black diesel exhaust into the sky.... As the short answer to that, well-maintained big diesel engines have a useful lifetime measured in millions of miles. Decades of use. Believe it or not, (most) emissions rules do apply to those vile soot-belchers (at least, the non-road ones); It will just take literally 50 years to cycle through the worst-of-the-worst currently in service.

        Yes, and the standards are getting more stringent. I think the most strict rules go into effect in 2015, and at that point the railroad engines will require DEF to meet the emissions standards, unless someone comes up with something amazing between now and then.

        Your other point is right on target, too - old locomotives are often rebuilt and reused, which is probably better for the environment than building a new one would be, even if the new one is more fuel efficient or runs cleaner. There are locomotives in service from manufacturers that have been out of business for 40 years.

    • by Nursie (632944)

      In the UK there's a low emissions zone around the capital that prevents the worst offenders from entering. or they have to pay, or something. Can't remember exactly but it's there!

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        In the UK there's a low emissions zone around the capital that prevents the worst offenders from entering

        So no more taxis, buses and diesel trains?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FireFury03 (653718)

        In the UK there's a low emissions zone around the capital that prevents the worst offenders from entering. or they have to pay, or something. Can't remember exactly but it's there!

        You pay £100 per day for vans (or van-based vehicles, so some cars count too) if they aren't quite new. It's a pretty stupid law - it doesn't get the polluting vehicles off the road, it simply pushes them outside of London. Meanwhile it encourages Londoners to buy brand new vehicles, which is arguably worse for the environment anyway.

        Then again, the government can't usually be accused of any kind of sensible thinking - in 2009 the UK government introduced a scrappage incentive to encourage people to

        • Honda, Nissan, Toyota, BMW and a Chinese company whose name escapes me all beg to differ. Just like the USA, we have plenty of car makers; it is just that, owing to the serial incompetence of British managements, they are not British owned. And, as anyone who has ever had to drive a God forbid, British Leyland vehicle will tell you, this is a Good Thing.
    • by Surt (22457)

      Because a multiplier of a 10^6 may be surprisingly relevant.

    • The dark black stuff is more unburned diesel than diesel exhaust. You don't see that stuff from a properly set up diesel engine (look at the exhaust from a modern diesel ship like a cruise liner - it looks like less than what comes out of those old trucks). On some modern diesels you can't see anything coming out of the exhaust at all, just like a gasoline car.

    • Re:Emissions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @11:50AM (#39261533)

      Industry clout. The public have no lobbies which matter.

    • cars emit only 10% (Score:4, Informative)

      by 1800maxim (702377) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @12:15PM (#39261847)
      I wish I bookmarked/copied/saved an article I came across a few years ago. It was a study/research paper that split emissions as follows:

      personal automobiles - 10% diesel transport trucks, diesel trains - 90%

      Not talking about CO2 emissions, but about other harmful gases. I applaud that we don't have smelly car exhausts, but not looking to regulate diesel trucks/trains is just like putting a band aid on a gushing wound.
  • Sue the lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kirthn (64001) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:00AM (#39260337)

    Sue the lawyers and Industrie group frorn endangering , and having knowledge of potetial dangerous effects...and delaying that for decades...how many more victims were added because of their frivolous behaviour

    • by wren337 (182018)

      The biggest liability the tobacco companies had was that they KNEW what was happening and actively covered it up. I hope these groups have bought themselves a ton of liability from anyone who was injured AFTER they suppressed publication.

    • Re:Sue the lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by glop (181086) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:25AM (#39260581)

      You can't do that. At the time they were postponing publication of the research there was no published scientific research that showed the danger of exposure to Diesel exhausts.
      So basically, they were acting in good faith and just bringing healthy debate to this issue.

      Now, where's that "sarcasm mark" key already?

      • by gr8_phk (621180)

        At the time they were postponing publication of the research there was no published scientific research that showed the danger of exposure to Diesel exhausts.

        That's strange. I've known fine particulates are carcinogenic for at least 10 years. Where I read this I don't even know any more, but I've considered it a fact for some time. Diesel particulates seem to be specifically called out in whatever ancient source my mind recalls this from. To me, the cancer link is very old news, Suppression of this particu

        • by ganjadude (952775)
          That would be the industries point, Sure everyone knows how bad it is, HOWEVER until those super smart scientists put it in a journal, its only what WE know, not what science knows, at least in the eyes of the law i believe but IANAL
        • by gewalker (57809)

          I was an design engineer at Cummins in the late 70's, did some emissions work there. They were concerned about cancer from diesel exhaust back then. So was the EPA. It was not considered proven science, but the consensus in was that the EPA was going to start regulating the particulates before too long. I can understand Cummins preferring the ostrich approach, but I would have thought the EPA would be a bit more active re: this. In reality, Cummins was not opposed the regulation in this area at the time, b

    • Dear Sir or Madam,

      It has been brought to our attention that you have an insightful idea that you wish to openly publish. At our firm "Dickweed, Asshole and Soulless" we value honesty and the truth but not as much as we value a large legal battle regarding your slanderous and libelous post. I don't feel the need to elucidate on what exactly we could charge you with but I would like to remind you that our clients are very powerful companies. Furthermore my colleague Chet Percy Soulless, Esquire takes a very personal pleasure in heading up cases against individuals such as yourself. On his desk is a ledger full of haikus devoted to this very topic mixed with poems of a rabbits dying breath as his white knuckled hands deny any more oxygen to its lungs -- this tome's title being "Satiated Bloodlust" golden embossed on what appears to be human skin. But I digress.

      Letters similar to this one have been sent to Slashdot and various other users who have already agreed not to post such dangerous and unfounded ideas such as yours. So remember that, before you hit submit on the above post, you will be hearing from our firm if you do.

      Ambiguously threateningly yours,

      Alfred A. Asshole, Barred Attorney
      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        Like that would ever happen: There's no way that 2 senior partners would interrupt their golf game to handle a simple C&D.

  • Oh look... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The American legal system again. Where lawsuits let people die while feeding corps and trolls. Way to go "America"...

    • by jdgeorge (18767)

      The American legal system again. Where lawsuits let people die while feeding corps and trolls. Way to go "America"...

      To paraphrase a different lobbying group: Lawsuits don't "let people die", people do. Yes, it's frustrating. However, the ability to harm people through litigation is an effect of whom the people chose to create laws. If you don't participate in every election available, you should expect this kind of thing.

  • How... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:02AM (#39260355)

    How could those lawyers live with themselves? What rationalizing did they have to twist their minds with to keep the pretense of humanity?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I believe their rationalization is "screw the rules, I have money".

      • I believe their rationalization is "screw the rules, I have money".

        But I don't think (I could be wrong) people can live that way. I suspect everyone, except maybe some true psychopaths, eventually feels the need to find a way to excuse their behavior as morally commendable, or at least permissible.

        • Re:How... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dougisfunny (1200171) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:12AM (#39260447)

          I think you're overestimating humanity.

        • by ClintJCL (264898)
          Well, you are wrong. And kind of sappy, too. Take it from a true neutral: Not everybody needs or wants morals.
        • Re:How... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by stjobe (78285) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:24AM (#39260577) Homepage

          Rationalizing is easy.
          "I deserve this".
          "It's only a job".
          "I was only following orders".
          "Everybody else does it".
          "Nobody will know".
          "Nobody will care".
          "It's not against the law".
          et cetera.

          • Re:How... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @12:12PM (#39261811)
            And the best rationalization of all: "if I don't do it, the next guy will, anyways. So the outcome will be the same, except I'll be the loser." And it's often true. It's the main reason why the world really does need ugly things like regulations.
        • Re:How... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Quince alPillan (677281) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:26AM (#39260587)

          I suspect everyone, except maybe some true psychopaths, eventually feels the need to find a way to excuse their behavior as morally commendable, or at least permissible.

          I think you've hit the nail on the head already. People with psychopathic tendencies are more prevalent than you might think, and they tend to rise quickly within corporate structures if they're highly functioning. Morals are a liability for these people and they do what they can to suppress them if they do have them.

        • by ganjadude (952775)
          perhaps they simply believe that the government should not be regulating every last aspect of our lives? not to defend lawyers but plain and simple, 90% of science research these days is abused by the government to instill extra regulation fees taxes and fines.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "I'm just doing my job" is the standard rationalization.

    • Re:How... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:15AM (#39260473) Journal
      "Everyone's got a mortgage to pay. [inner monologue] The Yuppie Nuremberg defense."

      If you like the lawyers, you'll love the twisted mentats who establish and staff what is politely referred to as 'Product Defense Industry'. This curious little world delivers opposing evidence, scientific controversy, 'independent' toxicology/epidemiology, and whatever else might be needed to support your lawyers in their battle against whoever is accusing your benevolent product of causing cancer in orphans or whatever...

      If ever the body of scientific evidence turns against you, these brave mercenaries of the laboratory can deliver enough doubt to buy years, potentially decades, of further freedom to operate!
      • by X0563511 (793323)

        Lets be fair, the people suing are not always right. There's plenty of assholes out there who just want a fast buck.

    • by Necroman (61604)

      I see can see a few:

      1) Money
      2) They don't believe the results are accurate.
      3) They think the researchers are just a bunch of environmental nuts.
      4) The lawyers may disagree with their client, but but they believe enough in the gray area of the law to see both sides.

    • Re:How... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @11:32AM (#39261313) Homepage Journal

      Lawyers have always been hated. From a book written in 100 AD and translated to English in 1400 AD:

      Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

      Poor lawyers... they have it rough. I wouldn't be one.

  • I find it sad that this is the state of scientific community. I wonder how many scientific studies are left unpublished because it's in someone's best interest to prevent their publication? I know there are methods to detect publication bias through various means, such as funnel plotting, and would imagine medical technology is a field where the practice of selective publication is fairly common. For an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_meta-analysis [wikipedia.org]
    • by tibit (1762298)

      You've missed the point. It's not about the scientific community, duh!! They want to do studies and publish! It's the industry bullies who suppress scientific output.

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      It's always been that way. Medicine? Heretic! Heliocentricity? Heretic!

      The only difference is now the god is Money.

  • This might be a dumb question, but whatever happened to the freedom of speech? I thought this was exactly the kind of thing that it was designed to protect, especially if it is true. I am deeply confused.

    • Re:First Amendment (Score:4, Informative)

      by avgjoe62 (558860) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:29AM (#39260613)

      First of all, freedom of speech only means that the government cannot impede your right to express constitutionally protected speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone has to give you space on their pulpit to make your speech. So, Facebook can ban you from their site, Yahoo can moderate your comments and the local newspaper can choose not to publish your letter to the editor. You are still free to stand on a street corner and speak out about what you believe to be important.

      Similarly, scientific journals do not HAVE to publish your paper. They are not obligated to. And when they have lawyers sending letters, threatening to tie up time and resources for years in a legal battle if the journal does publish your paper,you can bet that the journals will look long and hard at the costs to themselves for publishing your paper. It is not an issue of free speech - the government is not involved at all here. It is just a matter of intimidation. The industry lawyers are essentially school yard bullies, threatening to beat you up if you tell the teacher about what they've been doing. That those same lawyers know they will ultimately lose the case does not matter - they just want to threaten enough to make sure the paper never sees the light of day in a big, respectable public venue.

      Is this right? Is it ethical? I'd think not. But, is this legal? Unfortunately, yes. And whatever else it may be, it is not a matter of free speech. It's much more petty and venal than that.

      • by trongey (21550)

        ...- the government is not involved at all here. ...

        I'm pretty sure the courts are part of the government.

        • by avgjoe62 (558860)

          And did the journals ever reach a courtroom with this? This was all simply a threat made to intimidate scientific journals and prevent the paper from being published. Even the issues that did reach the courtroom were procedural arguments over the release of data for review before publication. Those proceedings did not involve the journals, just the scientists working for the government themselves. Essentially, in those proceedings, the Mining Group and the House Committee argued that they had the right

      • First of all, freedom of speech only means that the government cannot impede your right to express constitutionally protected speech.

        In the context of the US first amendment "yes." In the more general context of freedom of speech. [wikipedia.org] "No."

        And I would say that I'm not alone in this interpretation, given the existence of specific anti slapp [wikipedia.org] laws. What purpose could these laws have except to protect freedom of speech. In fact, from this case, it seems we/you need specific anti-SLAPP laws that include scientific journals.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:14AM (#39260469)

    Seriously, was there anyone out there in their right mind who thought inhaling diesel fumes (any *any* sort of petrochemical fumes, for that matter) WASN'T bad for you? Okay the cancer thing may be a new twist, but was there really anyone out there arguing for *more* diesel fumes for their workers?

  • by Compaqt (1758360) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:16AM (#39260489) Homepage

    I hope this won't be used to fuel the hysteria against diesel.

    For some reason, tree-huggers driving huge waste-emitting SUVs (so they can drive to the forest to hug those trees) seem to think diesel is the Devil's fume.

    A properly tuned modern diesel engine is sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other vs. gasoline. Some emissions are better, some worse. The Euro Standards have done a lot to reduce them.

    And if you're riding a bicycle, you might have some standing. But please don't preach about diesel sitting in your gasoline-guzzler.

    p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into.

    • by couchslug (175151) on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:33AM (#39260665)

      US standards are tighter than Euro standards.

      "p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into."

      Modern petrol engines are very long-lived, and can be made to the SAME longevity specs as a diesel. Witness the VW two valve engines which were designed with the SAME engine block and bottom end and and engine block capable of fitting diesel, carbed induction, and fuel injection components!

      Modern diesels are hideously expensive to repair in most cases (not VW). Modern pollution controls make them even more expensive to repair.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        Witness the VW two valve engines which were designed with the SAME engine block and bottom end and and engine block capable of fitting diesel, carbed induction, and fuel injection components!

        Shocking. An engine block designed to handle a 20:1 compression ratio running diesel can handle the 10:1 compression used for gasoline. Who'd have thought that?

        Using a diesel block for gasoline results in a massively overbuilt, and thus long-lived, engine.

        It also makes said engine more expensive unless you can sufficiently leverage economy of scale by using that common block for everything.

        • by fnj (64210)

          Idiot. The VW diesel engines are adaptations of VW gasoline engines, not the other way around.

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into.

      Nothing to do with gasoline. The combustion engine itself is hardly ever the part of the car that dies - it's the power transfer system (transmission etc) or other auxiliary gear that dies - and that could all be powered by magical pixie farts and it would make no difference. Torque is torque, at that point.

      • by couchslug (175151)

        Indeed. Modern auto transmissions are both complex AND designed for minimum production cost. It's cheaper to get one from a salvage wreck than replace with a remanned transmission.

        For many vehicles older than ten years, it's not worth the bother unless you are a mechanic (I am) and don't pay labor.

    • by na1led (1030470)
      My vehicles usualy rust long before the engines give out.
    • I hope this won't be used to fuel the hysteria against diesel.

      For some reason, tree-huggers driving huge waste-emitting SUVs (so they can drive to the forest to hug those trees) seem to think diesel is the Devil's fume.

      A properly tuned modern diesel engine is sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other vs. gasoline. Some emissions are better, some worse. The Euro Standards have done a lot to reduce them.

      And if you're riding a bicycle, you might have some standing. But please don't preach about diesel sitting in your gasoline-guzzler.

      p.s. Since diesel engines are built (and have to be built) tougher (to withstand higher pressures), they last longer. Which in itself is a great savings for the environment. The throwaway society (get a new car before you're done with the "old" one's payments) is not something I'm really into.

      I've done research, and it would be better for our economy to use more diesel. Better for the economy, better for oil consumption, better for the environment. The reason is this: in a barrel of oil, x% of it gets easily refined into gasoline, y% into diesel (I don't have the numbers handy on this computer, but a quick Google search can turn them up for the intrigued mind). Our country fuel use is >x% gasoline, y% diesel. We make up the difference in gasoline need by cracking heavier oils and polymerizing

      • by fnj (64210)

        This is mostly an old wives' tale that sorta used to be true ages ago, but is certainly not true today. With modern distillation technology, you can vary the ratio of various products pretty much the way you want.

  • I'm assuming that a diesel engine running on vegetable oil, as originally intended, would not have such harmful fumes, right? Swap to bio-diesel and you're good?

    • by JobyOne (1578377)

      Not exactly. I imagine it would have slightly different harmful fumes.

    • Diesel engines weren't originally intended to run on vegetable oil. They were invented using kerosene (mostly). One of Rudolph Diesel's dreams was to have them available to farmers which ran on peanut oil. One of his demonstrations was running the engine on peanut oil to prove that it could use vegetable oil.

      Petroleum was cheaper, so the diesel engine was modified for tighter clearances that petroleum diesel fuel allowed, and the engine became too "tight" for vegetable oil.

      The engine wasn't DESIGNED or or

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:38AM (#39260715) Homepage Journal

    I did RTFA, will not RTF studies most likely, but I am curious as to what parts of the diesel exhaust they decided were dangerous. The article implies also that they haven't examined current diesel exhaust towards the end, what with the mentions of things that have been done like DPFs and low-sulfur diesel.

  • The data's study show that 1 in 6 in the control group had a familial incidence of cancer whereas the study group's ratio was 1 in 4. Moreover, the study asks about the number of cigar and pipe smokers but ignores cigarette smokers.

    Not clear to me how you can draw much of a conclusion with those confounding factors.

  • I breathe in a shit-ton of diesel exhaust in my commute, and in offroad rallies (along with lots of fine dirt...I hope the mud that comes out of my nose the next day contains most of it).

  • After losing their anti-science suppression fight, they are now breezily dismissing these findings as irrelevant, as Tier 3 and 4 engines are so much cleaner now, due to regulations they also bitterly fought against.
  • I'm not an expert on emissions, I'm genuinely curious: Towmotors have been running on LP for decades so they can run indoors at places like big box home improvement stores. Why wouldn't underground mining equipment also run on LP or natural gas? Is it just as harmful? If so, why are companies using it inside retail stores?
    • by couchslug (175151)

      LP and natgas require SPARK IGNITION engines. High voltages tend to go places designers don't intend, and an arc to ground in a gassy mine could have unpleasant consequences.

  • Why is smoking always used as THE cancer example? It seems like a large percentage of people believe that if everyone stopped smoking there would be no more cancer. I have always maintained that vehicle exhaust is also a major factor, and without even needing studies of this kind: every ingredient in cigarette smoke that is carcinogenic is also present in both petrol and diesel exhaust fumes. A car engine, at high revolutions, puts out about as much CO and CO2 per second as a smoker does in a month. Diesel

System checkpoint complete.

Working...