Diesel pollution particles impair lysosomal functions of iPSC-derived microglia
24 points
7 hours ago
| 4 comments
| sciencedirect.com
| HN
calmbonsai
3 hours ago
[-]
I will never forgive VW for cheating on diesel emissions. That corruption went so far throughout the org the entire company should've been criminally indicted and shut down.
reply
OptionOfT
3 hours ago
[-]
And there was a solution available. AdBlue. Mercedes already used it, and so did BMW. But VW didn't want to use it.

And because of this scandal VW pulled their diesels, AND both Mercedes and BMW followed suit.

Quite sad, because an X5 diesel had really good mileage (if you used it for longer distances).

reply
MrDrMcCoy
33 minutes ago
[-]
My diesel VW had adblue, and still was affected by deiselgate. The ecu fix took my highway mpg from 35-50 to 18-24, and made the APR tunes incompatible.
reply
general1465
2 hours ago
[-]
Compared to what diesel trucks running across the country are exhaling daily, then what VW did is absurdly negligible.
reply
w10-1
3 hours ago
[-]
The finding is that older diesel engines and renewables produce measurable adverse effects in microglial stem cells, but new diesel formulations in new engines do not. The implication is that policy-makers should accelerate the transition to newer diesel and abandon reusable diesel. Since Europe has been gung-ho for diesel for decades, this finding could have significant regulatory and market effects.
reply
kyleee
4 hours ago
[-]
Seems intuitive, I have always had a strong negative reaction to inhaling diesel exhaust / particulate matter. Nasty stuff
reply
e-dant
6 hours ago
[-]
It blows my mind that we need any research at all to convince us that shoving tons of burning oil down our throats is a bad thing

Maybe, next time we need to drive 5 miles for groceries, we should just fucking walk, and say hi to one another, too

reply
whatevaa
1 hour ago
[-]
5 miles for groceries is ridiculous statement, you will not get any support with such stance. It's like 1h 30m walk one way. Day doesn't have infinite time, and people with families will need significant amount of food.
reply
i80and
5 hours ago
[-]
Very few people want to walk 5 miles for groceries. I'm lucky enough to be able to walk to my grocery store, and even being healthy and able, 1 mile each way is the most I want to do.

Bicycling would make 5 miles a cinch, however.

reply
calmbonsai
3 hours ago
[-]
Not related, cargo bikes absolutely rule if you have a decent climate and suitably safe biking infrastructure.
reply
oblio
2 hours ago
[-]
Even the "decent climate" range is actually huge, <especially with ebikes>. Basically I can think of only a one climate where life on bikes is really hard: very hot and humid.

Hot and dry is manageable since when cycling you naturally create cooling currents around you; you need to wear appropriate clothing (sunglasses + cap or helmet with shaded visor; appropriate long sleeved shirt, appropriate pants and shoes).

https://youtu.be/2opQQP13lPI?si=LdhJnF8yLKrVNuGM (for long sleeved shirts)

Cold climates are super manageable with appropriate clothing, bar mitts and most crucially of all: <well designed bike infrastructure including priority maintenance, just like for car infrastructure>.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

Of course super extreme weather like -30C or +40C at some point makes any active transportation close to impossible, but the vast majority of people don't live in those conditions and the people that do live like that, only do it for max 1-2 months per year.

99.99% of these issues are actually failures of infrastructure design and implementation.

For snowy conditions: daily snow plowing, debris removal, salting to prevent ice formation, etc, etc.

For hot conditions: planting trees, removing asphalt (for example grassy tram/train lines; parking spots with grass pavers (https://buildwithabs.com/product/grass-pavers/), designing tall buildings to shade urban sidewalks, etc.

Also, infrastructure doesn't just need to safe, it needs to be maintained as critical infrastructure, just like for cars, so that the infra is not degraded in practice.

reply
D13Fd
4 hours ago
[-]
5 miles is a long walk. That’s at least 1 hour and 15 minutes for a very fast walker, and probably around 2 hours for a more typical walker.

Plus you have to walk back, with groceries. Assuming you are feeding a family and not doing this 2-4 hour round trip every day, that means you’ll need a cart to push or pull.

Good luck pushing that loaded cart on a road with any amount of traffic. Most places in the U.S. where the grocery store is 5 miles away will involve either zero sidewalks and dangerous roads (more rural/suburban areas), or many many road crossings with lights that slow you down (denser areas).

I’m a big fan of walking. But 5 miles to a grocery store and then back is going to be way too much and too dangerous for most people.

reply
e-dant
4 hours ago
[-]
It is an accomplishment in a healthy, pro-social environment.
reply
calmbonsai
4 hours ago
[-]
But it's only a good judgment call if you have the available transit + shopping time, able body, suitable climate, and a single store that has everything you need.

If any of those conditions are not satisfied then it's better economic utility to outsource that entire task and get your exercise and socialization by going to the gym. You can even walk to the gym too. You can outsource almost anything except exercise.

reply
oblio
2 hours ago
[-]
It's still not practical. Humans just walk too slowly.

Let's be realistic here and accept the fact that anything that involves more than 1km of walking one way won't happen for 99% of people.

That's why we have bikes, for distances from 1km to 10-12km (one way).

And only after that should we have cars. Cars should also be reserved for very heavy loads (more than 50kg), groups of people (not single drivers, 2+ people in the car), and various other niche uses.

reply
WackyFighter
1 hour ago
[-]
> And only after that should we have cars. Cars should also be reserved for very heavy loads (more than 50kg), groups of people (not single drivers, 2+ people in the car), and various other niche uses.

There is a (slightly) tongue in cheek video you should watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfBgQjByvXI

I don't want to spend 6 hours commuting a daily in the UK. I've done this btw in the UK a decade ago. It was miserable.

It just isn't possible to commute in places without a car. Especially once you get outside of a main transit hubs.

reply
oblio
36 minutes ago
[-]
And that is perfectly fine, nobody should be exerting themselves needlessly. Where a car makes the most sense, use it.

But we should all campaign for better public transit, good bike infrastructure, good walking infrastructure, less car-only infrastructure, etc, etc.

reply
dzhiurgis
5 hours ago
[-]
Nah just get an EV. Self driving one if you want extra piece of mind.
reply
piva00
1 hour ago
[-]
An EV is still 2 tons of metal, plastics, batteries, that needed to be mined, refined, transformed, assembled, and delivered. Sounds excessive for getting groceries.

The solution, as usual for complex systems, involves more than one factor, almost no one living in an urban environment should need to go 5 miles to find groceries. Even on my suburb of Stockholm I have the option of 3 different groceries less than 1km away (we have villas, terraced houses, etc., so not only small apartments that some Americans are afraid of).

Urban design is a core principle to make your life easier, no self-driving EVs, those are a bad patch not solving anything of importance.

reply