Re: Re: Diesel fumes suppress immune response

[Guest guest]

chrismasterjohn wrote:

>

>> I try to keep up on the lung and heart damage studies consistently

> found from exposure to particulates of pollution in the air we

> breathe. Below is an article that appeared in Science News [March

> 13, 2004]. Native cultures were, beyond doubt, diesel-free.

>

> But the article says the damage comes from soot particles, and native

> cultures were, beyond doubt, NOT soot-free. Some of them, like those

> Price studied living in the thatch-roof houses would probably have

> had significantly greater exposure to soot particles than nearly

> anyone in our society, would they not?

Yes, but that was *traditional* soot, so it's okay, right?

Note also that the concentration of DEP in this experiment was 20

mg/m^3, which is roughly equivalent to sucking on an exhaust pipe.

Atmospheric DEP concentrations are typically measured in micrograms per

cubic meter, and a concentration of 20 mg/m^3 is about 1,000 times more

than what you would get outdoors in Los Angeles. This study may tell us

that chronic exposure to very high levels of DEP suppresses immune

function more than acute exposure, but it doesn't tell us that

atmospheric DEP is making us sick.

[Guest guest]

Ken Gage TOP-POSTED:

>

>> Note also that the concentration of DEP in this experiment was 20

>> mg/m^3, which is roughly equivalent to sucking on an exhaust pipe.

>> Atmospheric DEP concentrations are typically measured in micrograms

>> per cubic meter, and a concentration of 20 mg/m^3 is about 1,000

>> times more than what you would get outdoors in Los Angeles. This

>> study may tell us that chronic exposure to very high levels of DEP

>> suppresses immune function more than acute exposure, but it doesn't

>> tell us that atmospheric DEP is making us sick.

>

> Sure. Atmosopheric DEP may even be good for you [sarcasm]. Maybe

> better than clean air itself [heavy sarcasm].

1. Don't top-post. It's inconsiderate to those of us who have to clean

up your mess.

2. Your handling of that strawman was admirable, but I never (yet)

suggested that atmospheric DEP could be healthful. All I said was that a

study using dosages 1,000 times higher than one could be expected to

encounter in the real world are of limited use for determining the

health effects of chronic exposure to much lower doses. You are familiar

with the concept of a dosage threshold, are you not? And cost-benefit

analysis? What do you suggest that we do about DEP, and what evidence do

you have to show that it would be worth the opportunity cost?

3. It most certainly is possible that atmospheric DEP could be good for

you. Toxicity at high doses does not rule out positive effects at low

doses. However, I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that this is

the case, so I've made no such claim. It's a principle which you might

do well to consider adopting.

Berg

[Guest guest]

-

>Yes, but that was *traditional* soot, so it's okay, right?

You think it's impossible that there might be different kinds of soot, and

that the composition of modern soot might be more problematic than

old-fashioned versions?

And what do you think should be done when people are vulnerable to

environmental factors which, under other conditions (such as when eating a

good diet for a sufficient amount of time) they'd be comparatively unaffected?

I'm not commenting on this particular study, just your general attitude

about environmental problems.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>1. Don't top-post. It's inconsiderate to those of us who have to clean

>up your mess.

If you'd like to make polite requests, be my guest, but you're not a

moderator here, so you have no standing from which to issue orders.

-