Cars Cause Cancer

The Show
41

I haven’t ignored anything, I believe I have addressed every reasonable counter-argument.

I don’t think your argument about the European train system holds water. Are you saying the US doesn’t have the population density of Europe? It surely does in many areas, all along the west coast for example. Also, in the distances the European train system covers, say in the TGV’s bullet trains, there are expanses with no stops and no great population density. There’s no reason why a US trains system couldn’t run something similar.

Here’s some more info for everybody.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48163040965

Do you know anyone who believes in the nutrition of gasoline fumes? And yet almost everyone you know drives or rides in cars every day of their lives, sitting in traffic surrounded by fuming exhaust pipes, with their heat or AC jacked up, sucking this strange vapour into their car, their lungs, their bloodstream, their brains, their friends’ brains.

Gasoline is a synthesized, petroleum-based chemical containing many inimical toxins and additives. Interestingly, many of these carcinogenic additives, such as ethylene dibromide, are added to counter the toxicity of the lead and benzene. In other words, the manufacturers diminish the toxins whose effects might cause immediate alarm (such as lead poisoning) in favour of those whose effects are long-term and difficult to trace, such as cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, benzene “ranks among the top 20 chemicals produced [and used]” in the U.S., and “is even a component of cigarette smoke.” No wonder, then, that in addition to being everywhere near humans, benzene “is found in a number of hazardous waste sites…” The NTP calls it a “known carcinogen,” and the IARC confirms that it is “known to be carcinogenic to humans…”

It seems car designers certainly were smart to put the exhaust pipe at the back of the car. That way, the driver doesn’t get the poison in his face: the driver behind him gets it.

But no matter where you are in a city, you’re breathing these pollutants. “Smog” is a real phenomenon, and the air of a city truly is different than that of the country. Sure, inhaling a bit of exhaust on the way to work isn’t going to kill you right then, but if death or mortal disease are the first symptoms we look for when determining the danger of something, then I dare say we have a problem.

Do with this information what you will. Join the group, don’t join it; spread the word and invite others, or don’t spread it. Drive your car, don’t drive your car. It’s up to you and your values. Personally, for those not only concerned with cancer but global warming, I think this is an indispensable message. What better way to quicken humanity’s departure from gasoline-driven cars? What better way to bring the reality closer to home?

GASOLINE: THE PLANET’S TOBACCO
Why did it take decades for medical science to convince the public of the harmful effects of smoking? The answer is that “Big Tobacco” were and are businesses with big money at stake, and big money on their side–enough to pay off many scientists to publicly express their doubts on the issue. They even started their own cardboard organizations and websites to spread the disinformation.

That is exactly what the oil companies–some of the most expansive enterprises in the world–are doing now with global warming. And it’s very easy, because people would rather cling to the more comforting facts.

In one sense, the media is so saturated with global warming, it seems as though most people have accepted it; but in practical and political terms, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The translation from theory to action seems lacking.

Imagine, then, how such a revelation as gasoline causing cancer (we can imagine a similar reason as to why this has been kept quiet), might tip the scale in favour of global warming, by spurring (and possibly even outraging) the public. The main problem with convincing people of climate change is that, as with the effects of smoking and gasoline, there are not enough concrete indications of its effects in our daily lives. The visible effects are too slow coming. In comparison, we have images of iceburgs melting, but people don’t live in the Arctic, so they don’t care. What they care about is themselves, and their own homes and possessions. So that is what they must be told: it is their very own bodies that are in danger. Not the bodies of their grandchildren, or some endangered animal, or someone in another country, but themselves, and at this very moment. In order to help the environment, they need not know that they are helping it. They need only believe they are helping themselves, in the most direct sense–preventing cancer. And it is no lie. Gasoline causes cancer.

So that is how this message would serve a dual purpose: to counter both cancer and global warming; both an individual-based suffering and a group-based suffering. Cars Cause Cancer. Think about it.

American Cancer Society website:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Benzene.asp?sitearea=PED

42

Rail is too expensive and it’s even subsidized. i can travel to NY from MD for far less than the cost of even one ticket. I can also travel by bus for less still. My daughter and a friend went to NYC by bus for a day trip and the cost was $20 each.

43

Wow. I’ve been missing out on this one…

How about instead of the Carol Browner all-cars-are-pure-evil-and-must-be-destroyed attitude, let’s celebrate how much cleaner cars have gotten over the last ten, twenty, or even forty years. Air pollution was worse in the '70s in big cities than it is now, even though there are more cars, particularly ground level ozone, AKA “smog”. I don’t know what country the OP is from, but in the part of the US where I live, with the commute I have to get to work, alternative transportation is not an option. I don’t want to ride a bike or a horse 75 miles a day to work 12 hour shifts in a factory. There is no mass transit or light rail system that comes from the city I work in through four counties where I live that can take me to work. I do have a grocery store within walking distance from my house, but the nearest Walmart is 16 miles away. Unless the midwest becomes one huge metropolitan area, I don’t see mass transit being a viable alternative to driving myself to work.

I do realize that cars pollute. If you really want to panic, they pollute even when they’re parked and not running due to the outgassing of the interior plastics, leather, and carpet. The same thing happens in your house. That outgassing is that “new car” smell everyone loves, or that “new leather couch” smell you may enjoy inside your house. Personally, I will take that outgassing over the “outgassing” a horse produces. It’s much safer and much more pleasant. I would like to hope that we can see a positive side of things in the fact that cars are becoming cleaner every day. They are a part of everyday life in America and are not going away, but they are much better than they have ever been, in all ways.

As far as the panic that cars cause cancer, we can look at it this way: everything causes cancer. There’s lead in the power cord for your computer, carcinogens in your tap water, mercury in CFLs. Life causes cancer. Breathing causes cancer. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everybody drops to zero. We might as well enjoy it while we can instead of panicking over everything and trying to live forever. No matter what, it’s not going to happen.

44

I can very easily envision a major decline in the availability of personal transportation devices but perhaps 30 years it a bit too short of a time period.

45

Reliable transportation makes commuting to highly productive and better paying jobs possible, making it affordable to live and eat better and afford better health care and live longer. And living longer seems the greatest cause of cancer.

46

We’re all “car guys” here. This is a car forum. In addition to liking cars, we all recognize and celebrate the true contributions that ready and reliable transportation has made to our country, and even to the world. Visit countries without developed highway systems, countries that still move about by means of livestock, and you’ll see the difference. Watch countries that suddenly begin to prosper accelerate their advancement with cars and you’ll see the contribution. Watch the difference that Tata makes to India and you’ll see progress…and more sanitary conditions. Horses and cattle do not a sanitary city road make. Horses use their tails primarily to swat flies. Flies carry disease. Does your car attract flies?

We actively debate the subject of emissions control, and often disagree, but we all respect one anothers’ arguments. Making an altruistic statement like this on a forum where it’s in direct conflict with the culture of the forum is certain to raise feathers and accomplish zero. It’s like going on to a gun control forum and saying “I support gun control…without control of your gun you can’t stay in the bullseye.”.

If you posted with a technical argument we could discuss it in a technical manner. But, alas, you did not. Perhaps your post would have yielded results more palatable to you on an environmental activists’ forum. But, then, you would not have caused the debate you sought.

You posted a one-sided statement on a forum where it was sure to start an argument. You cannot in fairness than accuse those who argue with you of getting personal. Nobody here has called you any names. Some of us have simply satisfied the true goal of your post.

I’m still waiting for the data to support the statement that cars are creating a “worldwide asthma epidemic”. I personally have seen no evidence of this, nor read of it. At this pont I consider it unsubstantiated.

I’ve no doubt that you’re a decent and well-meaning person. And you seem articulate and educated. But, to use an old-west analogy, you’ve walked into a bar in a “car town” and proclaimed “all cars should be banished”. What reaction did you expect?

By the way, answers to my original questions might help me to at least understand the context from which this proclaimation is originating.

47

You successfully addressed part of texases’ post, but what about the other part? Here, I will repeat the part of his post you didn’t address:

Instead of complaining about possible problems, how about suggesting solutions? Complaining is easy, solving is not.

So, are you merely a complainer, or are you part of the solution?

48

Shadowfax, I was going to post my troll graphic, but I couldn’t find it.

EDIT: Ah! I found it!

49

Actually it seems that almost everything can cause cancer. Car emissions aren’t great for you, though they shouldn’t be any worse than ages ago when everyone had a fireplace or woodstove to heat their homes. Probably even worse is that ‘new car smell’–plastics and other synthetics outgassing can’t be great for you either.

But really what’s causing cancer is that people are living longer than ever before. So people are getting cancers that didn’t show up when life expectancies were shorter. An if you believe in natural selection, ‘cancer genes’ never get bred out, as cancers generally show up after child-bearing age.

50

Good points. Cars, with all their shortcomings, are probably much less unhealthy than what they’ve replaced. Part of the reason we live longer is the eradication of many diseases, and it’s highly likely that many of these diseases were transmitted via livestock and the flying pests they attract.

I bohght a book a while back about “The Good Old Days, not so good after all”. Obe of the chapters was abouot this very issue. Dirt streets covered with horse droppings became very unhealthy when the rains came. And the pests that livestock attract was discussed also.

51

Living longer causes cancer.

52

This is true. We see a lot more cancer these days since people are living well beyond the age of 50. It used to be that something else would get you before you had a chance to get cancer. Now that life expectancies are much higher, more people are getting cancer, and it creates the illusion that we have a cancer epidemic. Medical advancements and the identification of new types of cancer have not helped the “cancer epidemic” either.

53

It’s dismaying that you have to compare the US to third world countries in order to make our polluting car culture look good. How about comparing the US to the European countries that have made great strides in going car free?

Proof? It’s not hard to find. Simply put, air pollution killing people and making them sick in epidemic proportions, and cars are the primary cause of air pollution. Read below, links at the end.

Studies have confirmed pollution kills more people in Southern California than motor vehicles. Think about that for a minute. Think of all the people you know who have died in car crashes, and then realize that the number of dead from car exhaust is just as high. The EPA has confirmed that driving cars are the single most polluting things Americans do. Then there’s the World Health Organization report:

More Die from Car Pollution than Road Accidents

LONDON - Road traffic is the fastest growing source of pollution in Europe and in some countries more people are dying as a result of this air pollution than are being killed in accidents, health experts said yesterday.

A new report by the World Health Organization (WHO) showed long-term air pollution from cars in Austria, France and Switzerland triggered an extra 21,000 premature deaths per year from respiratory or heart diseases, more than the total number of annual traffic deaths in the three countries.

“Air pollution from traffic at the levels we have today does cause a major health impact,” Dr Carlos Dora, of the WHO center for health and environment in Rome, told a new conference.

The report shows air pollution from cars caused 300,000 extra cases of bronchitis in children, 15,000 hospital admissions for heart disease and 162,000 asthma attacks in children in the three countries.

“The growing evidence that air pollution is causing a major health burden adds to the effects of road traffic through noise, accidents and barriers to cycling and walking, and we need to address this head on,” Dora added.

more
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D4JJ20101014

Traffic pollution tied to increased emphysema risk

more

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D4JJ20101014

Living near traffic pollution tied to heart deaths

NEW YORK | Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:19pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Middle-aged and older adults who live near high-traffic roads may have a heightened risk of dying from heart disease – but the odds seem to go down if they move to a less-traveled neighborhood, a new study finds.

The findings do not prove that traffic pollution is the reason for the excess heart disease deaths, researchers say. But they do add to evidence tying vehicle-produced pollutants to the risk of dying from heart problems.

In May, the American Heart Association (AHA) released a report stating that recent studies have “substantially strengthened” the evidence that air pollution from traffic, industry and power generation is a risk factor for heart attack, stroke and deaths from cardiovascular causes.

About my motives and what I expect, besides the question being off base and beside the point, I will say all I expect is rationality. Is that too much to expect?

More at the links
http://greenoc.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/12/the-price-of-southern-californias-dirty-air-22-billion/618/

http://www.ibike.org/environment/air-pollution.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E4GT20100715

54

See my post above. Let’s not compare America to the distant past or the third world countries; let’s try to make the US the world leading in defeating car pollution, which we are falling far behind in.

55

Let’s not fall into the cynical “everything causes cancer” argument. And let’s not be in denial about cars being a primary, if not the cause, of death, disease and injury in our surroundings.

You say there’s no mass transit where you live; I ask why not. You say car pollution is better than pollution from animals; I say let’s not look backward, but forward, and learn from places that are going car free.

56

I just read the original post again, and I really have to ask: Why on earth would Tom and Ray want to start an agenda to eliminate cars from the United States? They are auto mechanics. If they were to start such an agenda, and heaven forbid succeed in the crusade, they would put themselves out of work.

57

It’s been said already, but I think it bears repeating:

Disclaimer: I am not a moderator, I just play one on TV.

58

Are you a moderator? If not, where you get off crying troll? I have rationally and politely presented a topic that goes to the heart of the issue (no pun intended, given the link between car pollution and heart disease.)

59

Yes cars cause cancer, living causes death. Lunch meat has been found bad because of high sodium and nitrates. San Fran Banned happy meals, our fair state WI is considering taxing non diet pop and banning non nutritional junk foods from all public places. My god man you can get killed crossing the street in a crosswalk. How many padded rooms do you propose so people can live to 110 even though they will not remember it?

60

Your point it well taken, in terms of valuing the life in your years, not the years in your life. But people in a padded rooms wouldn’t hurt other people, whereas their cars are spewing pollution harming and killing everybody.