Fossil fuels - the new 'asbestos'

The growing body of international and Australian scientific evidence confirms the increasing risks to the public posed by toxic fossil fuel exhaust emissions. Traffic-related air pollution, especially coarse, fine and ultra-fine particles, gaseous irritants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contribute to a number of health problems, for example:

• lung cancer deaths and accelerated tumour growth;
• increased cardio-vascular disease and myocardial infarcts;
• limited blood flow and increased blood clotting;
• increased sensitivity to bacterial products in airways; and
• more severe common viral asthma.

In general, these partly environmental diseases, like those associated with asbestos and tobacco, are an outcome of a pervasive system of corporate decision-making (pdf file 82KB), and influence.

“Denial” of a hazard by an expert may not imply - 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'" cautioned M. Greenberg in his paper titled The Art of Perpetuating a Public Health Hazard  (2005).

The Federal Government has initiated policies and measures that partly address and in time may reduce these impacts on human health. These policies include the following initiatives:

• support for the increased production, distribution and use of ethanol as a clean renewable energy fuel;
• active replacement of toxic fossil fuels (diesel and petrol) with ethanol or ethanol-blended petrol, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG) and bio-diesel; and
• reduction of highly toxic aromatics for example, benzene, in existing petrol.

A clear, non-partisan policy, in support of greatly expanded use of renewable and alternative fuels is needed.

Clean fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) would represent the introduction of known and proven measures to reduce risks posed to human health by petrol and diesel fuels. All of these measures, including the installation of in-tunnel filtration and gas detoxification systems in vehicular tunnels in heavily populated cities, are endorsed by the Australian Medical Association at both Federal and NSW Branch levels.

Ethanol is particularly suitable as an alternative fuel because it is renewable and is not a carrier of the types of toxic particles found in petroleum-based fuels such as petrol and diesel. Sweden’s Saab manufacturer now markets the most popular premium car sold in the UK and is powered by 85 per cent ethanol-petrol (E 85), which means a car that is cleaner, more powerful and cheaper to run than the petrol-powered equivalent.

The recommendations of the recent Biofuels Taskforce, convened by Prime Minister John Howard, seemed to lack insight. Many believe the findings were partly compromised by the alleged prejudices and of members of the taskforce committee. For example, to list on the website of the taskforce the CSIRO’s critique of Dr Gary Whitten’s key research work of the benefits of E10, without also posting Dr Whitten’s rebuttal of the CSIRO’s claims, appears to demonstrate a high degree of subjectivity, and lack of scientific probity.

Some observers believe these peculiarities were also reflected in the taskforce’s report and its recommendations. Indeed, the recommendations appear to carry a strong whiff, not only of anti-ethanol red herrings, but also of nepotism.

The extent of political and corporate-funded science is of concern because, as recent articles (pdf file 82KB) show, there is a tradition of manipulation of evidence, data, and analysis, ultimately designed to maintain favourable conditions for industry, at material, political and institutional levels. Other excellent articles on this subject of “corporate corruption” can also be accessed here.

The taskforce’s apparent opportunistic call “for more research under Australian conditions” to reduce health cost impacts does not appear genuine when it seemed to influence the Federal Government to set a goal of only 350 million litres of biofuel for all of Australia over the next few years. This biofuel token output target, being less than 1 per cent of fossil fuel sold in Australia, will have no discernable health benefit in the capital cities which are already heavily polluted with toxic fossil fuel emissions. At present, if all of Sydney’s petrol-powered vehicles switched to E10, then over 600 million litres of ethanol would be needed annually for Sydney alone. The taskforce was clearly out of its depth in evaluating the health benefits of replacing fossil fuels.

Unlimited and free access to clean air is a fundamental human necessity and right. The lung is a critical boundary between the environment and the human body. An average person takes about 10 million breaths a year and inhales about 16 cubic metres of air every 24 hours. The internal surface area of the airways in the five lobes of the human lung is about equivalent to that of a tennis court. Hence, toxic substances in air can easily reach the lung and produce harmful effects locally and in other organs.

Adverse effects of exhaust pollutants now include increased infant mortality (New Scientist July 3, 2004); chronic deficits in lung development of children aged 10-18 years (New England Journal of Medicine, September 9, 2004); acute heart attacks (New England Journal of Medicine, October 20, 2004); and an association between ovarian cancer and exposure to diesel exhaust fumes (International Journal of Cancer, August 20, 2004).

A compound found in diesel exhaust fumes may be the most carcinogenic agent ever analysed, say Japanese researchers (New Scientist, October, 1997). They warn that heavily loaded diesel engines are a major source of the chemical and that it could be partly responsible for the large number of lung cancers in cities, in tandem with tobacco smoking.

Alarmed by such documented findings, the World Health Organisation recently reported (pdf file 461KB) its serious concern about the health effects of vehicle pollutants and of the cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which can coat fine exhaust particles or exist as vapours. Diesel exhaust is around 40 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke on a weight/volume basis (Gong and Waring, 1998). Up to a fifth of lung cancer deaths are attributed to exposure to fine particles of vehicle exhausts.

A UK study (J Epidemiol Community Health 1997; 51:151-159) looked at 24,458 children dying of leukaemia and cancer in the UK over a 25-year period. It found that these children were 35 per cent more likely than chance to have lived within 4km of a major motorway.

The relationship between air pollution, death and disease has led to the recent conclusion that combustion of diesel and petrol is among the most toxic sources of emissions today (USA Clean Air Task Force Report, Feb 2005).

Very fine particles adsorb toxic gases and liquids onto their surfaces. On a weight basis, a billion ultra-fine particles are about equivalent to one coarse particle 10 micrometres in diameter, but have one thousand times the surface area. The fine particles are mainly soluble and penetrate deep into the lungs, indicating that the invisible exhaust may be the most dangerous of all.

The National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) reported recently that "Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 are the pollutants of concern, having peak concentrations at or above the NEPM standards and no consistent downward trend".

It is significant that the main problem the NEPC identified is fine particles of PM2.5. The Council stated: “The 2001 peak PM2.5 levels are above the advisory reporting standards at the four jurisdictions (NSW, Victoria, Queensland and WA) that provided data.”
 
In the USA, fine particle pollution kills 21,000 people each year. Diesel exhaust poses a cancer risk that is 7.5 times higher than the combined risk from all other air toxins while the risk of lung cancer for people living in urban areas is three times that for those living in rural areas (CATF Report, Feb 2005).

Twice as many people died in Sydney in 2000 from air pollution than from road accidents (Australian Bureau of Regional Economics Report, September, 2003). The cost of health impacts from vehicle pollution in Sydney alone is between $2 billion and $3 billion annually. Children are more susceptible than adults (except the elderly) to the adverse effects of air pollution (CATF Report, February, 2005). Yet, perhaps because these effects are less visible and dramatic than road accidents, very little seems to be done to address this deplorable situation.

The major political parties at federal and state levels, the oil companies and car manufacturers have known that while "leaded" petrol is a health hazard, “unleaded” petrol has even greater toxic properties. The decision was made, it seems, to cut lead so it did not poison the "catalytic converter" and knowingly introduce substances that would increase cancer rates.

Sound familiar? Asbestosis revisited! The cover-up continues to this day, at all levels.

A promotion of “no risk to health” even by state government bureaucrats seems consistent with a popular form of “denial” used by the advocates of asbestos and runs like: “We did not find the evidence for a causal association between an agent and its alleged effects.”

Alternative fuel use will continue to be driven by concerns over clean air and legislation to reduce toxic exhaust emissions.

Immense benefits in reduction in health costs can be achieved by a 50 per cent reduction of particle pollution as demonstrated in the Tokyo Case Study. The obstacles in the way to achieve such benefits, with cleaner fuels, continue to include a compromised political will coupled with unconscionable corporate conduct.