Not good news for Diesel Drivers

Submitted: Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:47
ThreadID: 104618 Views:5706 Replies:13 FollowUps:41
This Thread has been Archived
Was putting $200 of petrol in the car today in anticaption of a price rise due to that huge tanker bust which could cause temporay fuel shortages when I went thru the papers and noticed the following articles which could be a bit of a concern for Diesel drivers.

Essentially they are saying that diesel is much worse for our health than previously thought despite death rate from diesel pollution already being on a par with road accident deaths.

So I'm soaking that in when another article warns us of further diesel price hikes and at the same time revealing that the real economy of diesel is not provening to be as great as thought particularly around town.

Plenty of reading in these links for those trying to understand the issues.

Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Batt's - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:29

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:29
Didn't read it all but who originally was stupid enough to label diesels as an environmental saviour in the first place? I bet the fuel companies wouldn't have been against the push. And yes I have 2 friends who were gullible enough to believe they were doing the right thing by buying their first diesel small car but all said petrol ,diesel or electric they're all big polluters in their own way what can you do not much when we are so hungry for power. So who's going to be the first to go back to a horse and cart ?
AnswerID: 519311

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:09

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:09
Hi Batts

I'm guessing that most on here wouldn't have gone for diesel on enviromental grounds probably more for the range but nevertheless things are changing.

I have been out trying to find a decent small all wheel drive to replace our 3rd RAV4 which has now grown to be as big as our first patrol so I guess you have me as I'm not going to be the first to go back to horse and cart unless it has at least 150 horses pulling it.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799373

Follow Up By: Charlie B2 - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:55

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:55
Hi Batts,

And you don't reckon a horse is at all polluting ? :-)

You've clearly never owned one! :-) :-)

I have to argue that virtually everything we do is polluting in one form or another. The real challenge is to minimise the overall impact.

FollowupID: 799449

Follow Up By: Batt's - Monday, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:25

Monday, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:25
I'm sorry when did I say horses don't pollute ? maybe you should read it again you clearly missed the point things were better before man thought he was incredibly smart and invented all the poisons and toxic chemicals we have today we cover it up by calling it progress. In the Overall big picture we have taken leaps & bounds backwards with some positive moves forwards as well but us smart people in the push to move forward have created some horrible diseases which kill us among lots of other things the list goes on and on. Horses don't run on diesel ,petrol ,coal or uranium etc extremely harmful products man has tampered with maybe yours does. And no I have never personally owned a horse but my grandparents had a 400 acre beef & dairy farm maybe they have horses oh my god I just realised they had cattle ,pigs, dogs, chickens as well shame on them how can they live with themselves knowing they are responsible for all of that pollution when a diesel powered vehicle would be so much better for the environment. I'll be careful next time I'm out riding I don't get cancer when the horse farts thanks for opening my eyes up to that. You clearly don't get what I am saying I think we'll leave it there.
FollowupID: 799854

Reply By: Ron N - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 13:12

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 13:12
Robin - The biggest issue is how the oil companies have us by the gonads and regularly give us a good squeeze and twist that takes our breath away.
When I first started as an earthmoving contractor in 1964, petrol was 3 shillings and 4 pence (33c) a gallon (3.546L) and diesel was exactly half that.

That price relationship (between diesel and petrol) continued until the late 1960's/early 1970's, when diesel demand started to increase dramatically as the majority of trucks became diesel-powered, rail converted from steam to wholly diesel power, and many power stations went from coal-fired to oil-fired.

The 1974 and 1979 oil shocks contributed to the increasing cost of diesel in comparison to petrol. Diesel that cost me 10c a litre in 1979, cost me 40c a litre by 1983.
Back then, it was all about, "we're running out of oil". Oil production has never lowered since that time, and new oil field discoveries have kept pace with demand.

Since the mid-1980's, China has entered its "Asian Industrial Revolution" - and China decided about a decade ago, that its primary road fuel was to be diesel.
Since that time, diesel has become a "premium fuel".
There's no need for this to be the case, we have just allowed it to happen by being complacent as a nation.

The articles that try to make us think diesel fumes and particulates are going to be a massive health threat, are just carefully-manipulated articles, released at appropriate times, and designed to reduce diesel demand - in vehicle purchases and in useage.

Think about this. 25% of the worlds population still smoke. That's 1.75B people. They smoke a couple of packets a day on average. That's 70B cigarettes a day being smoked worldwide. Ever watched the massive, total amount of carcinogenic smoke produced by just ONE cigarette?
I reckon the amount of PROVEN carcinogenic smoke and particles from just ONE smoker in one day is more than the average diesel engine would produce in one day.
The world population of diesel engines is probably about 1/5 of the worlds smoking population. Therefore, we're at greater risk from secondhand cigarette smoke than we are from diesel smoke/fumes.

It's proven that full-time mechanics have about a 5 yr shorter lifespan. This is related more to constant exposure to carcinogens in used oil (nasty stuff), as well as asbestos exposure (clutches and brakes) from earlier decades. There's no difference in lifespan between diesel and petrol mechanics.

The simple fact is that we, as a nation, should be doing more to introduce increased competition into fuel supplies. We should be encouraging bio-diesel production, producing diesel from our huge NG supplies (fairly easily done), and getting the stranglehold of grocery retailers out of fuel retailing - which is producing much pricing distortion, and excessive control, over fuel pricing.
Just in the last month, Woolies has given me two "25c off fuel" offers - that I took advantage of. My last fuel-up of 137L cost me just $1.10 a litre (29c off because I also bought $5 worth of chockies that were on special as well, in the servo).

IMO, the "health scare" over diesel emissions is just oil-company-driven propaganda, designed to curtail diesel demand. The problem for the oil companies is that crude oil produces a fairly consistent % of each product.
If the demand for one oil product increases (such as diesel), then the oil companies have to refine more crude, and they end up with bigger stocks of less-saleable fuels, that then depress the market price of those fuels.

Therefore, the fuel product market is a carefully manipulated market, designed to benefit only those global conglomerates who control the transportation in our daily lives.
AnswerID: 519314

Follow Up By: John and Regina M - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:28

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:28
Ron N
An interesting read, somewhat long winded and off track from time.

But I'm certainly curious about a couple of things.
Firstly your reference to smoking and its effects. Where did you source your information from?
Secondly, your suggestion we should be trying to increase competition into fuel supplies. How can we if we support the stranglehold of grocery retailers by utilising their considerable discounts when convenient. Then you describe how you have utilised their discount vouchers.
Thirdly, you assert the oil companies are screwing us. Perhaps, but look at the levels of duties and taxes on fuels and perhaps the story is more complicated. Again, where are your facts?

I know how easily it is to preach with one side of the face and then succumb with the other. You raise some interesting issues and preface them with "IMO' thankfully, so we know they are only your opinion. It would be interesting to see the facts.
FollowupID: 799375

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:52

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:52
That response took a bit to write Ron and I would agree with some but I'm really not into the conspiracy side of things.

Certainly any big conglomerate does their very best to maximize their market share and once when I was inside one
the lengths they would go to were quite revealing - but they still stayed on the legal side of the law (with a push and as much spin as possible).

But taking the health scare aspect as oil company propaganda is probably stretching it.
Its fair to say though that they would fund any beneficial research and release results, but this is still legal ,the spin comes if they don't declare funding sources and negative research.

Its government agencies that have shown that Diesel is carcinogenic to humans much more so than unleaded and I don't have any basis to dispute that.
While I'm sure cigarettes are a much bigger problem overall the backs of the big corporations have clearly been broken in some countries like our own and consumption has dropped, so right can win.

Getting to the guts of the matter Diesel like cigarettes is a personal choice we can all make but really how many of us actually take the data and make changes in our lives until things become blindly obvious.

I think we have a duty to ourselves to do due diligence and prove if the results are valid but then consider how much our own interests influence our acceptance or otherwise.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799377

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 19:45

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 19:45
Because of the utter deviousness of the Tobacco Industry, and 3rd world lack of figures, exact tobacco figures are hard to pin down.
However, here are some smoking figure references from organisations that are on the tail of Tobacco producers:

One site I came across stated that just one cigarette produced 10 times the pollutants of a modern diesel automotive engine.

Have you ever wondered why cigarette smoke is never mentioned or even measured, in any Climate Change report?
Do you consider that even slightly suspicious? - particularly when every fart that cows or pigs produce is measured??
Something stinks here - and it isn't pig and cow farts.
It's called "undue influence" - and it's covered in one of the headings in the first link.

"Undue influence" is a continuous and carefully orchestrated campaign by all major global corporations to "protect their patch".

It's not a conspiracy - that's something totally different. I'm talking about global corporations that have turnovers (and power to match) that make many OPEC countries GDP, look positively pale in comparison.
Remember, the largest executive retirement bonus ever paid in the history of the world was $400M to Exxons CEO. They don't deal in chicken feed.

These global corporations wield enough power to be able to dictate to Govts and politicians, as well as influence lawmakers - and they buy off politicians at every opportunity presented, if there's opposition to their aims.
Remember that John D. Rockefeller was the major instigator behind graduated taxation and monopoly laws.

I've been inside major corporate boardrooms in this country and the lack of ethics and morals of the directors in these boardrooms is nothing short of astounding.
They see corporate laws merely as minor obstructions to their corporate aims.
Those aims are to control end-pricing as much as possible - despite Govt's much-touted efforts to eliminate corporate behaviour that is monopolistic, illegal, and designed to shaft end-users to the exclusive benefit of the corporation, at every opportunity.

I have direct evidence of one CEO of a major Oil exploration company claiming he had no interest whatsoever in complying with any Australian OH&S laws. His only concern was totally maximising his companies profits. He saw OH&S laws as an impediment to that aim.

The Oil companies are guilty of undue influence, precisely the same as the Tobacco companies are. They manipulate end-pricing, oil prices, and oil-futures prices, because they can, because they have the power and money to do so - and because it's in their interest to do so.

As far as utilising Woolies discount vouchers - well, why wouldn't I? I'm not a complete fool - and I'm driven by self-interest, the same as everyone else.
I also know that my groceries have additional pricing to make up for fuel "discounts" - but I manipulate their system to ensure I get maximum benefit.

Did you buy a smaller 4WD than you wanted, purely because you're driven by a need to lower your carbon footprint? - by the need to reduce the global impact of polluting, commodity-consuming urban 4WD's? - by the need to be a more caring global citizen??
No, I thought not - you bought the biggest and best 4WD that you could afford, and bugger the cost to the world and the environment. [:-)
FollowupID: 799406

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:01

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:01
I don't know about the others Ron but I brought the best 4wd - but it ain't the biggest.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799506

Reply By: MUZBRY- Life member(Vic) - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 13:13

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 13:13
Gday Robin
You rumour monger you, are you trying to upset people and spoil your image? People know you as a nice knowledgeable person , and now you have spoilt that. Its so sad . .
When do you want me to buy coffee?

Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 519315

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:04

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:04
Muzbry where were you an hour ago.

I was getting a cappicino and would happily have let you pay for it.

Actually for us now semi-retired types we should try and see if we could organize an eastern suburbs melbourne coffee morning , even once a month would be good !
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799372

Follow Up By: MUZBRY- Life member(Vic) - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 16:24

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 16:24
Ill be in that Robin....
Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799387

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:31

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:31
Well lets see if we can get some more starters
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799393

Follow Up By: Dust-Devil - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 18:25

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 18:25

Dude! you won't even open your pocket/wallet and let the moths out so that you can buy a critical replacement OEM hydraulic hose, so how may I ask are you going to be a financial member of a 'coffee club'.

I suppose there is always the BYO in a thermos option. (maybe)

FollowupID: 799401

Follow Up By: MUZBRY- Life member(Vic) - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 19:45

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 19:45
Gday Ken
Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799405

Follow Up By: Dust-Devil - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 21:27

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 21:27
I'll see your coffee and raise you 3-4 Mulled Wines.
FollowupID: 799422

Reply By: Member - Toyocrusa (NSW) - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:18

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 14:18
Robin,I have this vision of, If you read all that whilst putting $200 worth of petrol in the car,I bet the poor old Service Station Manager would have been tearing his hair out. Not to mention the line up behind you. Didn't you hear the horn blasts? lol. Bob
AnswerID: 519317

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:19

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:19
AH , petrol station queing - we could have a long thread on that subject Toyo.

Its a benefit of being semi-retired that you don't have to be in the morning/evening crush queues , I reckon it took me 15 minutes what with 5 jerry cans and all in peaceful surroundings and they even have coffee for only $1. (but they don't have the stuff to sprinkle on the top of a cappicino )
I wasn't near the diesel pump where there is always oil on the ground. Maybe a premonition (how do you spell that)

I only read the headlines there , and later the full stuff.

Interestingly the local Victoria papers won't link to the articles without paying - but a quick search came up with the courier mail links I posted.

I hope the attendant doesn't tear her hair out as she was kinda cute !

Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799381

Reply By: Member - Boobook - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:31

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:31
Geez Robin, next you'll be knocking on people's doors preaching people to get Petrol 4.8 GU's and putting down the Diesel who wears Prado err ah I mean Devil who wears Prada.

If you have a long term campaign to drive up the resale price of your 4800 GU, you still have a looooong way to go.


AnswerID: 519320

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:33

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:33
I'm innocent BooBook , I just read the newspapers and anyway I buy so many 4800's that I rather keep the price low.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799394

Follow Up By: Shaver - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 13:35

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 13:35
What Robin is keeping secret is that he is trading in the Rav 4 & the GU's on a 200 series 4.6 Petrol. He has finally succumbed to the overall refinement of the 200 as against the agricultural tractor known as the 4.8 that has given him such loyal service with it's minimal roll over spec's.
FollowupID: 799451

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 14:17

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 14:17
Nah, I'm betting Robin will be Australian customer no 7 for a Y62 in about 12 months.


FollowupID: 799453

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 15:45

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 15:45
If we traded the Rav for a Nissan Dualis and GU Patrol for a 4.6 200 series at least we would still be a Nissan/Toyota family - but then would the wife drive the Dualis or the Cruiser ?
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799463

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:11

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:11
Hey Robin,
If you're going for the Dualis, the best model is the diesel - 4.5L/100k combined cycle!
Much less fuel than 8.2 l/100k for the petrol!!!
Cheers, Phil
FollowupID: 799489

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:06

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:06
I have to say quietly that I was more interested in a V6 awd Phil - and now I have justification - only my wallet's health will suffer as its a petrol.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799507

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:16

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:16
I know your problem, Robin. I tried for ages to convince my wife she needed a V8 Landcruiser for around town......then I could keep the 79series and have 2 toys to play with.

But in the end, we compromised on the VW Tig. Its a great little SUV - AWD with the great combination of leather and traction control - nice pokey diesel motor and ours has an Aisan 6-speed auto instead of the VW DSGs. I've wanted to lift it, and add bigger muddies ..... just so she'd find it easier to climb in to :-)
but she hasn't approved yet!
FollowupID: 799509

Reply By: Member - Chris_K - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:58

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:58
Interesting topic, and one that I was discussing with a colleague earlier via email. He was espousing the views that the price differential for Diesel vs Unleaded was too great, and my response is below:

"1. You paid 139.9 for your fuel - and if it's going into the Jeep - your fantastic fuel economy is getting you about 20l/100k around town (downhill with a tailwind, with the car in neutral). So if you filled your car with 55 litres - it would have cost you $76.95. You will travel 275k with your tank....or further if you put it on the back of the tilt tray recovery truck that it normally sits on.

2. The "poor" old guy in the VW Golf who is getting 5l/100k and filled up with 55l of Diesel has paid $88.50 @ 160.9 and will get around 1375km from his fill. So you will visit the servo about 5 times in the time this "poor" old guy has visited once. Oh and you've paid $384.75, and he's paid $88.50.

I reckon that's a "differential" worth paying...and not only that, he didn't wait for 1/2 an hour for the shopper docket crowd to fill up, cause he can pick up his Diesel when the ULP price are high, and you can fire a cannon down the forecourt!"

So, if you excuse the pun about his Jeep - the equation for Diesel's is still valid, although you do need to factor in the heftier up front cost...which you do get back at resale time. Diesel engines emit more noxious gases and CO2 per litre of fuel used than petrol-powered cars. However, because diesels use less fuel, they can also emit less CO2 over time - a diesel is 20 to 30 per cent more efficient than an equivalent petrol engine. It's also important to note that the Greenhouse Guide noted above is based on the rate of CO2 emissions from the vehicle - it doesn't take into account the amount of fuel used.

Diesels are also getting cleaner every year and the new Euro 6 standards that come in (next year I think) should help further, and if you tow - it's a no brainer. I'd be very careful about the "carcinogenic" versus "possibly carcinogenic" - nothing that comes out of a tailpipe is likely to be good for the lungs!

It should also be noted that no vehicle is good for the environment, not even the Holden Volt (100% electric - with a small "generator" attached), as we get most of our power in Oz from coal fired power stations...and the Prius, wait for the disposal cost and replacement cost when the battery dies.


AnswerID: 519322

Follow Up By: Member - Chris_K - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 16:07

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 16:07
Sorry - meant Euro 5 - not 6...time for a beer. ;)
FollowupID: 799384

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:45

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:45
Well Chris I guess any of those comparisons are so much car dependant - even the article itself said VW was 5.2lt in diesel and now 5.4 in petrol.

I recall that I made the choice , which I felt was difficult , between 2 good cars the LC200 d and my Petrol GU and I find it instructive to look back on that post of 2 years ago and see how it stands up , won't get sidetracked with the technical merits of the choice - but I still have the 36,000 dollars price difference and the interest has paid for the extra fuel the GU used , so comparisons can be tricky.

I note on re-reading my post that current issues of health etc were not a consideration at the time - but if this science holds up then maybe they will be considered next time..
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799396

Follow Up By: Member - Chris_K - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:01

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:01
Hi Robin

Yep - that $36k is a lot of fuel to make up...agree on that one. In the end we all make decisions based on which vehicle reckon will fit our lifestyle. Lots of people wonder why I drive a blunt instrument called a Landcruiser...until you go off road and it all sort of adds up. Same goes for the Patrol - although I don't know if I would make my next purchase decision based on some propeller head's health research on which fuel is better for me.. :)
FollowupID: 799408

Reply By: Rockape - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:59

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 15:59
well I have probably inhaled more diesel fumes than 99.99% of people on this site and guess what I still live, much to the annoyance of many. This inhaling has been from confined spaces, where your eyes were burning and you have trouble breathing at times. I had to have medicals all the time, including tests for lead. All good. Guess I will just keep driving my diesel and wait for death to come.

I guess the diesel never worried me as I am from the neanderthal era.

This week, last week and next week.
Bananas are bad for you.
Vegemite causes allergies.
Meat will kill you.
Butter kills or is that margarine.
Simone is having Shane's baby or was that Brad and Jen are getting back together.

Have a look at unleaded fuel poisons and you may discover they are not very pretty. Yes everything kills if you have to much of it, even MacDonalds.

AnswerID: 519323

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:52

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:52
We still love you Rocky - but maybe for longer if you stay away from those fumes.

Gotta admit its tricky weeding your way thru all the reports and claims and trying to formulate a meaning plan for running ones life to maximum advantage.

I think they are still working on the Grand Unified theory of the Universe - might watch tonights "Big Bang Theory" episode to seee how its all going
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799397

Follow Up By: Ron N - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 21:23

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 21:23
Well, Rockape - It looks like you're stuffed! Can we have your tools and your car when you keel over early next year?? [;-)

It's interesting to see that the WHO study was only carried out on a group of underground miners - and it measured their exposure underground from 1947!

I can't recall exactly how long exhaust scrubbers have been around - but I'm pretty sure they've only been around since the 1960's.
That means these miners were exposed to raw diesel fumes in massive quantities for at least a couple of decades.

IMO, this "groundbreaking study" on diesels carcinogenic properties would carry a lot more weight if they had used a research study base consisting of ordinary people going about their work and living in a normal city with the normal level of diesel vehicles.

I note that one American study on underground mining diesel fumes toxicity stated that "mining operations only present a very small fraction of the diesel engines in use".
This statement alone shows up the WHO study as being too narrow to be of any general relevance to above-ground diesel exhaust pollutant conditions and health effects.

Cheers - Ron.
FollowupID: 799421

Follow Up By: Rockape - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:35

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:35
Robin you are onto it by watching the Big Bang Theory. Now we have common ground and can debate the issue properly. LOL.

Just for others interest here is part of the msds for unleaded fuel.
R11 Highly flammable. R65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed. R45(1) May cause cancer. R46(2) May cause heritable genetic damage. R48/20/21/22 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.

Ron, yes scrubbers were around for as long as I remember. Monthly exhaust tests were carried out on all machines and I never saw one fail the test. This was despite the fact some of the engines would look like a fire in a tyre factory when running. They have been onto the dangers of diesel in confined spaces for as long as I can remember.

Here is a quote from Cat.

Caterpillar can offer the underground mining industry the choice of either a wet exhaust scrubber system or a dry particulate filter system. Both the wet and dry exhaust scrubbers employ a particulate filtration system with an inline purifier and catalytic converter. Caterpillar has designed
a proprietary diesel exhaust solution to meet the highest emissions standards for the health and safety of personnel. The replaceable Cat particulate filter captures particulate matter, preventing its release into the mining atmosphere. A heat exchanger or wet bath scrubber is used to reduce exhaust-gas temperature and a catalytic converter reduces gaseous emissions. The exhaust system is monitored by the Cat DCS electronic shutdown system, which prevents the machine from being operated in unsafe conditions like low water levels or high exhaust system temperatures. Both dry and wet exhaust packages are approved for underground coal mine operation.

This machine solves the problem. She was powered by electricity.

This is a photo of her and her entourage seeing light for the first time in 5 years. The following Boggers were pulling a 1 meg genset and carrying a 415v to 1100v transformer so she could travel the 5 kilometres to the surface for a rebuild.

FollowupID: 799431

Follow Up By: Ron N - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:06

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:06
Rockape - Yeah, well .. I tried out one of those Irish electric 4WD's once.

It went just great, until I came to the end of the extension cord! [;-)
FollowupID: 799446

Follow Up By: Rockape - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 16:19

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 16:19
the old girl could destroy her trailing cable with ease and did so regularly.

The cables could last anything between 2 hours and 4 months before going down to earth. At $20000 a pop that could be very expensive.
FollowupID: 799466

Reply By: Axle - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 16:12

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 16:12
G/Day Robin, .....UMM is thought of that New Nissan V8 getting stronger?

Cheers Axle.
AnswerID: 519325

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:56

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:56
Its looking more viable Axle , but the thought of losing 2 live axles is just to much to bear - anyway I'd probably get and 200 series next time for the same reason I didn't want it last time - its just to big and heavy a car - which now looks small and light compared to that new Nissan monster.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799398

Reply By: Notso - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:22

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:22
I've just had a look at the Safety Data Sheets for Unleaded and Diesel, I know which one I'd prefer to fill up with at the bowser.


AnswerID: 519332

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 19:55

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 19:55
Those sheets look pretty bad Notso - especially for petrol but I think they are referring to handling the fuel , not breathing the end product of is combustion out of a car which is the general population concern.

Mind you you wouldn't want to be filling up near the bowser I was at today where you run the risk of slipping over on the oil soaked concrete.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799407

Follow Up By: Notso - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:18

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:18
Yeah, that's why I said,

"I know which one I'd prefer to fill up with at the bowser."

The end products of the combustion is a different matter and I don't think either fuel is much good for us in that regard.

FollowupID: 799410

Reply By: Ron N - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:15

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:15
The bottom line, without considering the health/pollutant issues, is that diesels are far better for long-distance, highway speed touring, and for towing.
The superior torque characteristics of diesels come into their own for towing, and diesels produce their finest performance when run at consistent, moderate RPM's for extended periods.
My old HDJ80 auto sat on 2200RPM at 110kmh in converter lockup. That's brilliant for maximising diesel consumption.
Around town, with stop-go driving, hard acceleration and constant idling, it was a different story.
A diesel gains absolutely nothing over a petrol engine in the city. The additional purchase cost of a diesel and the additional cost of diesel fuel make a petrol vehicle a no-brainer if you do 90% city driving - as 80% of the population do.

As far as the health angle of exhaust pollutants goes - well, the jury is still out on that one, for the long term. I know studies show that the fumes and pollutants are killers - but no-one can agree on what exactly constitutes a killer level of diesel fumes. There are "recommended safe levels".
Ciggies, on the other hand, are definitely proven to be deadly - and secondhand ciggy smoke, just as much.

I've breathed in almost as much by way of diesel fumes as Rockape - and I've been doing it since the early 1960's. I'm still in reasonably good shape, health-wise. I've also breathed in vast amounts of choking silicaceous dust in agricultural work.
I've probably done more damage to myself with welding burns, oxy-acetylene burns, cuts, gashes, and bruises from tools, equipment and machinery, and secondhand cigarette smoke, than anything else.

I'm mildly concerned about the eventual effects of all the brake and clutch dust I've ingested, and the amount of used oil I've paddled in - but then again, I have mates who have picked up mesothelioma, and they've never indulged in half the dangerous work that I've done, in nearly 50 working years.
AnswerID: 519340

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 15:58

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 15:58
I guess some of these things are hard to prove Ron - look how long it took to start making inroads on cigges.

One problem here is that as a mate says -> diesel pollution ! what pollution ! its all behind me anyway.

With ciggy second hand smoke the first person has had it inside their lungs making the connection stronger.
I just driven home behind a Bus and I'm such I took in more of his particles that he did.

One thing I have had brought to my attention by medical people is just how hard and insideous some of this stuff is - they find it near impossible to remove golden staff from hospitals - perhaps one day we will be able to hold up a Star Trek type scanner and instantly see where any given particles are , and then just maybe the real cleanup can begin with verifiable results.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799465

Follow Up By: Ron N - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:14

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 19:14
Ahhh! - So it was your mate that made this video, then?? [;-)

Cummins VS bicycles ...
FollowupID: 799508

Reply By: The Landy - Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 22:18

Monday, Oct 07, 2013 at 22:18
An interesting post, on a number of levels and it got me thinking about the “real” health hazard of refined fuels.

Not to discount their value, but (some) reports from academia are subjective at best...

But here is the thing, when we talk about “dangerous” for our health why single out diesel as being worse than petrol?

Both are derivatives of oil.

The West, and more recently China and India’s seemingly insatiable appetite for oil has seen wars fought, to protect it, and wars fought to procure it, death is never too far from a barrel of oil.

Oppression in the middle-east has been funded by petro-dollars, so when we talk about diesel being more dangerous to your life, there may be a number of differing perspectives, and the resultant outcome might be rather academic depending on whether you live a comfortable existence in Australia, or spend your life dodging bullets in downtown Damascus, Syria, or lived under the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

Of course, middle-east tensions have long existed, and will continue long past our life time; but over the past 50 years oil has been the fuel, and currency, that has taken these tensions to a new level.

I do get it that one might be worse than the other, if looked at microscopically and in isolation.

Perhaps on the one-hand, diesel will take a few years off the tea-totaller’s life, but on the other, make no difference to the boozing alcoholic, who lives well beyond a reasonable expectancy – such is the nuance of the life and death cycle.

But young men and woman of all creeds have died, and continue to die, to ensure, in part, that we can pull up at a bowser and put $200 of fuel in our car – that’s a “real” health hazard, nothing subjective about it, thats for sure!

Strewth, I’d better put on the joggers and go for a run, 10:00pm at night is far too late to be thinking this deep!

Cheers, Baz – The Landy!
AnswerID: 519347

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 16:24

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 16:24
We all know hurricane Katrina started when a butterfly flapped its wings in South Africa Landy, but just how responsible is the butterfly - clearly the consequences were unintended.

Getting closer to home one can mount a reasonable arguement that speed cameras cause nett harm to our society but if you draw a line around the issue and only include direct effects that occur on a road
then you can state that they do have benefits - but then unlike the butterfly those implementing camera's can reasonably be expected to
know that 1 in 6 Victorians can't afford there prescription medicine and that the cameras have taken a billion dollars off the people.

So how many deaths could have been averted by not taking the billion dollars against how many lives cameras may have saved.

I think the answesr to your question about our comfortable existence are ->

If a study that considered all the consequences concluded the good outweighed the harm then its acceptable.

If the responsible body ignored data and blindly forged ahead then they are indeed responsible.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799469

Follow Up By: The Landy - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:13

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:13
Hi Robin

You’re putting me at risk of needing to go for another jog tonight, two days in a row... ;)

I wasn’t questioning a “comfortable existence” but highlighted there may be differing perspectives on the dangers of diesel.

The newspaper article reports someone making a point that diesel, a derivative of oil, might be more harmful to us than petrol. As I indicated earlier, if you lived in an oil producing middle-eastern country, you might just find that a moot point.

Death is never too far from a barrel of oil and history is littered with examples to validate this. Is that an unintended consequence that might be deemed acceptable when weighed up against the alternative of not having oil?

I suspect we’ll be hard pressed to find an affirmative answer to that question from anyone, perhaps any answer for that matter, besides, we are all too busy seeking out the cheapest priced service station to refuel our vehicles or to secure supply...

On speed cameras – The capture of revenue from speed cameras goes into government consolidated revenue.

Governments collect revenue on the one hand via taxes, levies, and heaven forbid, speed cameras and redistribute on the other via government welfare and other payments. If this redistribution is not making it to the people most in need within our community than it becomes something that the community should lobbied for. In the case you mention, perhaps this will be for an increase in spending on health care.

But I fail to see that there is a correlation between revenue from speed cameras’ having an unintended consequence on the affordability of health care benefits. Quite the opposite could be argued if government distributions we’re redirected to health benefits, surely?

I suspect we are heading into off-topic territory here so I’ll sign-off on this note, but perhaps one day we can sit around a fire, a cold-one in hand, and enjoy a discussion...

Although, thinking that through, the unintended consequence may very well be a sore head the next morning!

Cheers, Baz, The Landy ;)
FollowupID: 799491

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:57

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:57
I was sort of trying to show that we can't really be held responsible for things we are not designed to do Landy.

Humans are designed primarily as short term thinkers and can't relate well to 2nd or 3rd order consequences of our actions and even have difficulty modifying behaviour to things with immediate consequences.

On the cameras the study showed that people make choices with the available money they have and the actual outcome is not buying prescription medication when funds are low.

The consequence of taking a billion dollars off people is that there available funds are lower.

The money largely goes to running the organizations concerned.

The magnitude of the effect is however open to intrepretation.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799505

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 23:37

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 23:37
I like your perspective Baz.

I'll bet the "prescription postponers" have no trouble stumping up for their beer, coffee or ciggies Robin. Most of us have an intense dislike of speed cameras but that's one of the longest bows I've seen for quite a while. Your second line above is spot on - unfortunately.
FollowupID: 799550

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Wednesday, Oct 09, 2013 at 08:07

Wednesday, Oct 09, 2013 at 08:07
Hi Bazooka

"I'll bet the "prescription postponers" have no trouble stumping up for their beer, coffee or ciggies Robin "

There is that element , but many also have real issues here and a problem we have is becoming judgemental and then filing the issue away.

Wether for the right or what we perceive as the wrong reasons these are the things that are become known as we get better data.

Hence why always support any imposition or our society as requiring proof which encompasses all reasonable unintended consequences.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799554

Reply By: Member - Boobook - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 13:00

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 13:00
Robin, without being too serious about the whole thing, that second article you refer to looked like one of those nonsense, poorly researched newspaper articles that appear too frequently, and on closer inspection it just doesn't stack up.

For example it talks about diesel savings not being what people expect, especially in town. Now this forum for starters goes around in circles about diesel vs petrol economy and the economy can be counted 1000 different ways, all with different results.

But that article specifically refers to the VW Golf's manufacturer figures. If you check them out of the VW web site for that model ( I can't post the link because VW make you fill in an enquiry form), you find that the figures used for the diesel are for an old generation Golf that's is so old it's no longer sold. It's not a relevant comparison. The petrol only has 80kw and 200nm of torque, and the current diesel, which should be used not only has better fuel economy but has 25% more power at 110kw and 60% more torque at 320NM.

Why on earth use the old diesel model other than to make the story look good?

Newspaper articles like that explain why people don't buy newspapers any more.

AnswerID: 519372

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 15:48

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 15:48
I didn't look at it that way BooBook because they did say it was an earlier model , and I thought they were trying to get across the point that petrol development is proceeding at a faster rate than diesel and they are not that far behind with the gap closing.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799464

Reply By: Member - Boobook - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 16:24

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 16:24
Could be Robin, either way 4 - 5 l/100km ain't too shabby. Petrol, Diesel or anything. I used to think 28 mpg was real good in my old 1974 ish 1.6 Ford Capri. That's about 8.5l/100k. Doh. Shows how much things have come along. Mind you I did treat the accelerator as an on off switch back then, and from memory petrol was about 15 c a litre in the late 70's.
AnswerID: 519390

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:46

Tuesday, Oct 08, 2013 at 18:46
Unlike lucky you BooBook - my fuel use has gone up with every car I brought from my 40mpg V dub in the late sixtes to my 16mpg 2010 GU - so while I know the answer I do wonder at why.

But in real terms fuel has for me become more affordable over that time and the only real effect is that I have to carry more to match the diesels range.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 799502

Sponsored Links