These days reached the daily mirror, the letter of a retired chimney sweep. The newspaper had reported on a group of lung doctors expressed doubts as to the scientific basis of the limit values for fine dust and nitrogen oxides. The content of the reader’s letter, in abbreviated Form: I turned 50 years fireplaces, huge quantities of the stuff inhaled, I am now over 80, my lungs is totally fine.
We can congratulate our chimney sweep and hope that he creates for many years, without getting out of breath, the five flights of stairs, of which he also wrote, to his apartment. That fine dust is not unhealthy or healthy, you can’t derive but from his case.
That the group that attracts the scientific Basis of the fine dust of doubt, and to a large extent from the lung doctors, that is a bunch of the auto industry purchased scoundrels – the Tenor of some of the other readers letters that day – but also.
facts and alternative facts
the core of The criticism was not also in the statement, fine dust is not harmful to health. Rather, the fact that you don’t know about it enough and that what one can deduce from the scientific data in a scientifically serious manner, the currently applicable limit values does not justify. He was basically the fact that the limit values, because facts are missing, based on alternative facts.
limits for substances which may be exposed to people who are at a high. They come from the world of work, or the occupational safety and health. It doesn’t exist in a way worthy of the name, in Germany for much longer than 100 years. Limit values for silica dust or asbestos fibers in the mining or oxides of nitrogen in the factory are significantly younger.
And it was not until long after that, came the limits for the pedestrian traffic light and the balcony at the Leipzig road.
The limit values for the workplace in the Federal Republic of Germany come into existence since the 50s on the basis of recommendations of a Commission of the German research Foundation and the “Committee on hazardous substances”, the industry and employee representatives. Responsible for the work of the Ministry.
A balancing process on the European level
The currently discussed limit values for concentrations in the environment are a result of considerably more complex political deliberation processes on the European level. To the consideration of the Emission Situation in the places of all the States of the Union here, in addition to scientific studies on the possible health risks.
The question of whether it is at all economically-friendly manner, everywhere possible limits, plays an important role here. That after 2010, some of the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been reduced, was not rather the result of a reassessment of the health risks, but, above all, a political act, a Signal that The EU is doing what for the environment and health. The implementation seemed without a great deal of pain possible, because since the 90s, the measured values were already declined steadily.
pollutant limits are rarely what would be desirable, or below which the cancer risk would be Zero. They are mostly values that you can adhere to without reaching our limits. You are a model student of the political, market-oriented pragmatism. The most absurd, and from the Diesel and its economic importance is not so far away, example is gasoline.
It contains today, about one percent benzene, a highly carcinogenic substance. The Fuel, every diesel needs, and the benzene vapors at filling stations, despite all the suction technology as measurable and smelled floating in the air, and is therefore officially considered to be “carcinogenic”. Gasoline and the Otto engine, that is supposed to be for use by the General public is prohibited.
However, the hazardous substance regulation exempts these fuels from all restrictions. Where would we be otherwise? Nowhere to be found, at least not with a car. There is a difference between benzene and particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides, however, is that people are accustomed to the latter, evolutionarily, as it were – similar to ozone, by the way, or animal fats in the diet.
use of The precautionary principle,
Since we fire, and even in caves and houses, we breathe in you. It’s genetic adaptations to the handling and preparation of Food are even with fire demonstrated that make us less prone to disease. This is a Problem for experiments on the harmfulness, because it draws no man, but rather mice.
but rarely fire, and are therefore not a good model. Such studies are, however, together with observational studies of large groups of people, from which it is impossible causal relationships to derive a Basis for the determination of the limits. An Argument for strict limits to the precautionary principle. Especially when you – what was the core message of that letter – simply don’t know when the stuff is dangerous.
That would be true, if the engines were silent. You don’t have to do but, it is only a new addition: What people are accustomed to, ultra-fine dust. The escapes, ironically, just those new, modern units, the EU-standard less of the “conventional” fine dust blow out.
ultra is That it is fine dust in larger quantities at all, so it is also a consequence of the limits. It is ultra-light, with the measuring stations is barely measurable – and remains permanently in the air, while larger particles will be at least fall to the ground and washed away. He can penetrate very deep into the lungs and probably also in the blood and body cells.
More about
debate to limit dust as an ideology
Rainer Woratschka Patrick Reichelt Sarah Reim
What can have health consequences, he, nobody knows. First notes are rather disturbing. Our chimney sweep can probably be glad that he remained of ultra-fine dust largely unscathed.
