Diesel Fumes - Cancer Risk
Guest
Posts: n/a
Diesel Fumes - Cancer Risk
As an engineer working at one of the major UK airports I am becoming increasingly concerned about the health risks associated with the long-term exposure to diesel exhausts fumes.
I am sure any crewmember who has performed a 'walk around' during a busy turn around will be aware of the number of diesel powered vehicles and ground equipment that are left running. These vehicles are often in a poor condition and can be seen to be emitting blue or black smoke. This smoke is composed of solid carbon particles (soot) that are contaminated with the harmful chemical associated with (particularly cheap) diesel fuels. There is numerous scientific evidence that inhaling these substances over the long term can increase the risk of lung cancer. There are also other known short- term health risks
HSE guidelines suggest various measures to minimise these risks, yet I do not see these measure in place at the airport where I work. One of the simplest solutions is to fit tail pipe filters to diesel vehicles but I have never seen them in use. Does anybody have any information regarding the use of such filters at other airports?
Here are a couple of links to sites containing information about the hazards of diesel exhaust fumes:
http://www.gpmu.org.uk/hs/health/msg00014.html
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg286.htm
I think an airport is a particularly hazardous place with regard to diesel emissions for the following reasons:
The high concentration of poorly serviced vehicles operating over a large geographical area, (whichever way the wind is blowing it is bringing fumes in your direction!)
The engines are often continually left running
Airlines and support organisations purchase cheap unclean fuels
The engineer doing a wheel change or the flight crewmember performing a 'walk around' often has to 'run the gauntlet of numerous exhaust emissions'
Shift workers often have a very high rate of exposure due to the fact that they are normally working at the busiest periods at the airport.
As an engineer working shifts on the ramp I think this is the most serious long-term health and safety risk we face and would welcome other comments on this subject.
Max
[This message has been edited by Capt PPRuNe (edited 14 July 2000).]
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 14 July 2000).]
I am sure any crewmember who has performed a 'walk around' during a busy turn around will be aware of the number of diesel powered vehicles and ground equipment that are left running. These vehicles are often in a poor condition and can be seen to be emitting blue or black smoke. This smoke is composed of solid carbon particles (soot) that are contaminated with the harmful chemical associated with (particularly cheap) diesel fuels. There is numerous scientific evidence that inhaling these substances over the long term can increase the risk of lung cancer. There are also other known short- term health risks
HSE guidelines suggest various measures to minimise these risks, yet I do not see these measure in place at the airport where I work. One of the simplest solutions is to fit tail pipe filters to diesel vehicles but I have never seen them in use. Does anybody have any information regarding the use of such filters at other airports?
Here are a couple of links to sites containing information about the hazards of diesel exhaust fumes:
http://www.gpmu.org.uk/hs/health/msg00014.html
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg286.htm
I think an airport is a particularly hazardous place with regard to diesel emissions for the following reasons:
The high concentration of poorly serviced vehicles operating over a large geographical area, (whichever way the wind is blowing it is bringing fumes in your direction!)
The engines are often continually left running
Airlines and support organisations purchase cheap unclean fuels
The engineer doing a wheel change or the flight crewmember performing a 'walk around' often has to 'run the gauntlet of numerous exhaust emissions'
Shift workers often have a very high rate of exposure due to the fact that they are normally working at the busiest periods at the airport.
As an engineer working shifts on the ramp I think this is the most serious long-term health and safety risk we face and would welcome other comments on this subject.
Max
[This message has been edited by Capt PPRuNe (edited 14 July 2000).]
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 14 July 2000).]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that info Max..
Does kero compare to diesel in the "fume dept."? .....sometimes when T/Rotor balancing helicopters we cop a lot of hot blow from the turbines.
Plays hell on my eyes mainly.
Does kero compare to diesel in the "fume dept."? .....sometimes when T/Rotor balancing helicopters we cop a lot of hot blow from the turbines.
Plays hell on my eyes mainly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sprocket
As far as I know (and I hope if I am wrong somebody will correct me) Kerosene fumes do not post a cancer risk in the same way as diesel fumes do. This is because Kerosene is generally a cleaner fuel and modern Gas Turbine engines are far more efficient than the majority of diesel engines normally found at an airport. As a result little soot is produced.
It is the soot that is the hazard since it is a solid (as opposed to gases and vapours from a jet engine). When the soot is inhaled (or ingested with that crew sandwich you are eating whilst doing your walk around!) It carries into your lungs (or stomach) all though lovely chemicals found in cheap diesel fuels such as benzene and hydrogen sulphide etc. etc. It these chemicals that do the damage.
That said, I have no idea what the long-term effects of the ‘hot blow’ your eyes are receiving would be. Perhaps somebody who is medically qualified can comment. (I am just a worried engineer!)
Regards
Max
As far as I know (and I hope if I am wrong somebody will correct me) Kerosene fumes do not post a cancer risk in the same way as diesel fumes do. This is because Kerosene is generally a cleaner fuel and modern Gas Turbine engines are far more efficient than the majority of diesel engines normally found at an airport. As a result little soot is produced.
It is the soot that is the hazard since it is a solid (as opposed to gases and vapours from a jet engine). When the soot is inhaled (or ingested with that crew sandwich you are eating whilst doing your walk around!) It carries into your lungs (or stomach) all though lovely chemicals found in cheap diesel fuels such as benzene and hydrogen sulphide etc. etc. It these chemicals that do the damage.
That said, I have no idea what the long-term effects of the ‘hot blow’ your eyes are receiving would be. Perhaps somebody who is medically qualified can comment. (I am just a worried engineer!)
Regards
Max
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is common dog for Christ's sake! Exhaust fumes of any description are bad for your health! Life, eventually gives you death. And as for soot on your sarny, what're you doing eating in your workplace anyway? One-handed walkrounds? Mind on the job? Or on the sarny?
And while we're on, where do I get some of this cheap diesel????
If you can't take the fumes - stay out of the kitchen.
---------------
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
And while we're on, where do I get some of this cheap diesel????
If you can't take the fumes - stay out of the kitchen.
---------------
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Taff
It’s a scientific fact that diesel fumes from a poor condition engine are far more harmful than petrol/kerosene/LPG etc.
Have you seen a 747 turn around lately? On average you have 2 FMCs 2 catering high lifts, 2 cleaners high lifts, an engineering high lift, a refuel rig, a tug, a ground power unit and numerous small vechicles, most in poor condition, all belching out diesel smoke. This is simultaneously happening on all the stands around you. Some of us are exposed to this 8 hours a day 7 days in a row. Some days you get home and you are black and the only tool you have had out is your pen!
I know engineering is a dirty job and there’s a lot we should put up with but it’s all about minimising the risk. I expect you use ear defenders and barrier cream etc. Is it unreasonable to expect your employers to fit readily available filters to reduce your exposure to known carcinogens?
Unfortunately I have witnessed colleagues suffer cancer first hand. Two of which are not around today. While I am not suggesting diesel fumes are in anyway related it does tend to focus your mind on these issues.
As for the sarnie it was meant to be a light-hearted example of the risks of eating in this environment. You do not need to see the ‘soot’ for it to be doing you harm. I am talking about general air quality here. Air quality checks are often made outside of the airport to assess the environmental effects on local towns but I have never heard of them being carried out on the airport.
I have spoken to many other people on the ramp, loaders/caterers/dispatch etc and they all have similar concerns. Some of them can’t afford to ‘get out of the kitchen’ . The rest of us just want to increase the chances of getting a few years out of our pension.
Regards
Max
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 15 July 2000).]
It’s a scientific fact that diesel fumes from a poor condition engine are far more harmful than petrol/kerosene/LPG etc.
Have you seen a 747 turn around lately? On average you have 2 FMCs 2 catering high lifts, 2 cleaners high lifts, an engineering high lift, a refuel rig, a tug, a ground power unit and numerous small vechicles, most in poor condition, all belching out diesel smoke. This is simultaneously happening on all the stands around you. Some of us are exposed to this 8 hours a day 7 days in a row. Some days you get home and you are black and the only tool you have had out is your pen!
I know engineering is a dirty job and there’s a lot we should put up with but it’s all about minimising the risk. I expect you use ear defenders and barrier cream etc. Is it unreasonable to expect your employers to fit readily available filters to reduce your exposure to known carcinogens?
Unfortunately I have witnessed colleagues suffer cancer first hand. Two of which are not around today. While I am not suggesting diesel fumes are in anyway related it does tend to focus your mind on these issues.
As for the sarnie it was meant to be a light-hearted example of the risks of eating in this environment. You do not need to see the ‘soot’ for it to be doing you harm. I am talking about general air quality here. Air quality checks are often made outside of the airport to assess the environmental effects on local towns but I have never heard of them being carried out on the airport.
I have spoken to many other people on the ramp, loaders/caterers/dispatch etc and they all have similar concerns. Some of them can’t afford to ‘get out of the kitchen’ . The rest of us just want to increase the chances of getting a few years out of our pension.
Regards
Max
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 15 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would be concerned about the effects of fumes. In fact I am and I dont work at an airport. I know its a pain but maybe you could wear a painters mask to postpone any possible effects. What really can be done. Outfitting equiptment with filters would minimize efficiency and be a greater cost than a mask of some type. Just look at all the occupations involving hazardous breathing environments. I dont think it will ever change--unless we forfeit the industrial revolution altogether. Maybe we could start using teams of horses again? I think 20 horses could pushback a 744. 
------------------
http://bigjets.tripod.com/flightline/
[This message has been edited by BigJETS (edited 26 July 2000).]
------------------
http://bigjets.tripod.com/flightline/
[This message has been edited by BigJETS (edited 26 July 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Penn Doff?
Perhaps you should change your username to P*ss Doff?
The sad fact of the matter is that the problem is not going to go away. Electric powered support vehicles are so far in the future to not have an effect on you and I so what is the alternative? Pedal power? Perhaps the sh*t from BigJETS horses could be used as alternative fuel?
On a more sensible note, I do care about the environment that you and I work in but I accept that there are hazards, some avoidable, some less so. I can't afford to get out of the kitchen either so I accept the risk. Whinging about it on threads such as this does nothing.
As for your final comment; for all you know, I could be working in your place right now.
----------
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Perhaps you should change your username to P*ss Doff?
The sad fact of the matter is that the problem is not going to go away. Electric powered support vehicles are so far in the future to not have an effect on you and I so what is the alternative? Pedal power? Perhaps the sh*t from BigJETS horses could be used as alternative fuel?
On a more sensible note, I do care about the environment that you and I work in but I accept that there are hazards, some avoidable, some less so. I can't afford to get out of the kitchen either so I accept the risk. Whinging about it on threads such as this does nothing.
As for your final comment; for all you know, I could be working in your place right now.
----------
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BigJETS
Funnily enough I recently spoke to some loaders who told me that they had actually tried using masks for a while but they quickly become blocked and difficult to breathe through. Which rather amplifies the point that there are a lot of contaminants in the air! Also another problem with masks is that it probably doesn’t inspire confidence in boarding passengers when they see all the support staff running around with masks on. I agree that filters will increase the cost and reduce the efficiency of the vehicles that they are fitted to. However the vehicles with the biggest emission problems are probably the most inefficient vehicles anyway. So the cost is not as relevant. If these filters were mandated it might make companies consider replacing them with newer, cleaner and more efficient vehicles. They would also be cheaper to run and therefore further reduce the cost of minimising emissions. All in all I think the cost is justified considering the health risks involved.
Taff
Actually there are some alternatives. The BAA already has a demonstrator van that runs on LPG. This fuel is extremely clean and much cheaper than diesel. Also further use could be made of electric power; for instance diesel ground power units could be replaced with electric units.
I am sorry that you think I am whinging, I will be the first to admit that many people jump on the environmental bandwagon who have wacky ideas like ‘ban all cars’ etc. On the other hand a lot of sensible progress has been made. The modern motor vehicle is a lot cleaner thanks to catalytic converters and lead free petrol etc. As another example my grand father suffered from asbestosis due to exposure at his workplace. Fortunately this material has largely been substituted with other materials and we are no longer exposed to it unnecessarily.
Your life expectancy is a lot higher than an engineer of a hundred years or so ago. If some people hadn’t whinged over the years this might not be the case.
Regards
Max
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 21 July 2000).]
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 21 July 2000).]
Funnily enough I recently spoke to some loaders who told me that they had actually tried using masks for a while but they quickly become blocked and difficult to breathe through. Which rather amplifies the point that there are a lot of contaminants in the air! Also another problem with masks is that it probably doesn’t inspire confidence in boarding passengers when they see all the support staff running around with masks on. I agree that filters will increase the cost and reduce the efficiency of the vehicles that they are fitted to. However the vehicles with the biggest emission problems are probably the most inefficient vehicles anyway. So the cost is not as relevant. If these filters were mandated it might make companies consider replacing them with newer, cleaner and more efficient vehicles. They would also be cheaper to run and therefore further reduce the cost of minimising emissions. All in all I think the cost is justified considering the health risks involved.
Taff
Actually there are some alternatives. The BAA already has a demonstrator van that runs on LPG. This fuel is extremely clean and much cheaper than diesel. Also further use could be made of electric power; for instance diesel ground power units could be replaced with electric units.
I am sorry that you think I am whinging, I will be the first to admit that many people jump on the environmental bandwagon who have wacky ideas like ‘ban all cars’ etc. On the other hand a lot of sensible progress has been made. The modern motor vehicle is a lot cleaner thanks to catalytic converters and lead free petrol etc. As another example my grand father suffered from asbestosis due to exposure at his workplace. Fortunately this material has largely been substituted with other materials and we are no longer exposed to it unnecessarily.
Your life expectancy is a lot higher than an engineer of a hundred years or so ago. If some people hadn’t whinged over the years this might not be the case.
Regards
Max
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 21 July 2000).]
[This message has been edited by max motor (edited 21 July 2000).]
