你回的文字很瞎阿
這麼不遺餘力攻擊柴油車
還引一半
果然是純粹被打臉的份
看來你寫的一些文章祇能看看而已,連"參考用"都比不上
要求你要具備一點回頭唸abstract的能力都很困難阿
我們看一下這篇文章的引用論文
Dr Kurt Straif和 Dr Lamia Tallaa在投稿的學術文章說啥呢
我們先看標題
The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study: A Cohort Mortality Study With Emphasis on Lung Cancer
摘要
We undertook a cohort mortality study of 12315 workers exposed to diesel exhaust at eight US non-metal mining facilities. Historical measurements and surrogate exposure data, along with study industrial hygiene measurements, were used to derive retrospective quantitative estimates of respirable elemental carbon (REC) exposure for each worker. Standardized mortality ratios and internally adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate REC exposure–associated risk. Analyses were both unlagged and lagged to exclude recent exposure such as that occurring in the 15 years directly before the date of death.
所以我叫maken大你回去看看文章再來說話
你連看都沒看
他的研究母體只是統計8種非採礦型工業工人肺癌得病率
標準是:這些工人都是吸入respirable elemental carbon (REC)(基本型直接可吸入式碳微粒,不是化合物!!!)
敢問:那種引擎製造這種東西比較多?
答案是:蒸氣鍋爐,二行程的任何老舊引擎
哪個跟現行的四行程柴油引擎扯上邊?
PS:阿特金森引擎保養不良,在部分的混合油氣會回到進氣岐管時是會像二行程引擎一樣噴燃燒不完全的碳微粒子喔
http://car.cool3c.com/article/39440
Atkinson循環引擎，它藉由進氣閥門較平常晚關閉的特殊設計，延遲壓縮行程的時間，製造「膨脹比大於壓縮比」的狀況，以求得更理想的熱效率。
換句話說，就是它引擎的進氣時間比壓縮時間更長，所以更能容納較多的混合氣以利燃燒，而由於在壓縮行程時，進氣閥門比較晚關閉，所以有部分的混合油氣會回到進氣岐管；與傳統的Otto循環引擎相比，引擎在單一循環中所需要的油氣也會比較少，因此也能達到油耗的經濟表現。
你看論文的能力很差!
該文獻主要是探討柴油機排放氣體及肺癌發生率之間的因果關係, 你沒辦法抓一群人故意讓他們吸廢氣來作為實驗組, 因此研究者採取的方式是長期記錄八個礦區12,315個礦工的肺癌發生率, 透過控制不同癌症發生的可能變因(如性別, 生活習慣等), 最後得出柴油排放氣體與肺癌發生率之間的顯著統計關係, 這種統計研究方式在醫學及社會科學很多!
REC是研究者用來做為礦工暴露在柴油排放氣體下的統計指標, 不是什麼"基本型直接可吸入式碳微粒", 我都不知道你在講什麼!
作者的結論很明確
"Our findings provide further evidence that diesel exhaust exposure may cause lung cancer in humans and may represent a potential public health burden"
The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study
研究者並未討論什麼樣的柴油排放方式, 該研究著重的是柴油排放氣體跟肺癌間的統計關係! 所以IARC的新聞稿裡也提到了
"However, while the amount of particulates and chemicals are reduced with these changes, it is not yet clear how the quantitative and qualitative changes may translate into altered health effects; research into this question is needed. In addition, existing fuels and vehicles without these modifications will take many years to be replaced, particularly in less developed countries, where regulatory measures are currently also less stringent. It is notable that many parts of the developing world lack regulatory standards, and data on the occurrence and impact of diesel exhaust are limited"
你的戰鬥力這麼差, 我就不知道你怎麼會把Group 4跟IARC把柴油內燃機排放氣體提升到Group 1的確定致癌物混為一談囉!
請麻煩你解釋一下
這幾位礦工對啥標地研究物,所以他們是highly exposed workers???????????????????
要說別人看論文能力差之前
記得先刮乾淨自己的鬍子
你一篇paper若沒有特定針對某樣假設,你怎麼寫的出來?
(醫學上要統計某人吸入的特定化學物質,不是只有傻呼呼的把別人當老鼠關在籠子才做得到,朋友)
不需要一直重複的強調Diesel
因為這篇paper也沒說這些母體的接觸引擎與接觸油類為何
(環境變數控制的非常差!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
除非你這麼希望我把你也當成這種研究者!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
是4行程柴油引擎還是2行程柴油引擎的廢氣被列入????????????????
WHO在歐洲喔,怎歐洲車的柴油引擎還在繼續生產沒被勒令停工
你的邏輯不是很怪,是根本超乎常人
回過頭來,maken的邏輯應該是這樣吧?
WHO有個recommendation
->maken認為是issue an order
->maken認為是柴油被列入致癌物
是這樣嗎?
還是你老兄保駕護航到連腦子都說不清了呢?
眾位M01跟在maken後面的鄉民
WHO還沒認定這個建議可以當依據
你們先自我催眠說WHO等一下就會issue an order
有沒有搞錯阿,你們這些跟在maken後面的是WHO的幹部還是啥?
2. 本次評估之所以會決定, 除了近年來相關的病理學研究外, 主要是JNCI今年刊出的兩篇研究
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) doi:10.1093/jnci/djs034
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs035
3. 這兩篇文獻及IARC新聞稿主要就是強調"DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST"
4. 被列入第一級致癌物(Group 1)的是就單純指柴油引擎排放物
5. 納入Group 1後, IARC的建議全球應減少民眾暴露在柴油引擎排放物下的風險
6. IARC是WHO下單位, 負責依據其流行病學及動物毒理實驗證據，區分不同物質其致癌等級; 此次決議就是將柴油引擎排放物由原本的Group 2A致癌等級提升到Group 1, 表示該物質有明確證據顯示其致癌性, 這已經是"決議", 沒有什麼WHO還認不認定的問題!
新聞稿跟論文的摘要看懂了嗎?
是阿wayc大
很高興你認清IARC是WHO下面的組織
不是WHO本身,更沒有權力發布禁令
但是WHO的新聞稿你看懂嗎?
Evaluation
The scientific evidence was reviewed thoroughly by the Working Group and overall it was concluded that there was sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. The Working Group found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer (sufficient evidence) and also noted a positive association (limited evidence) with an increased risk of bladder cancer (Group 1).
The Working Group concluded that gasoline exhaust was possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a finding unchanged from the previous evaluation in 1989.
wayc大
Evaluation和possibly這兩個英文字你認不認識?
還是你故意選擇性失明?
你若是研究生,我很懷疑你會畢的了業!
你若畢業了,我很懷疑你的論文是怎麼設定起始變數與假設條件!
現在換我問你了
WHO的新聞稿看懂了沒?
還要不要我去找文字幫你解惑?
可不可以不要選擇性失明????????
csshih wrote:
很高興你認清IARC是WHO下面的組織
不是WHO本身,更沒有權力發布禁令
對不起, 我英文很不好!
Evaluation我在本文只看到是段落title, 說明IARC的看法
Possibly我在本文只看到"gasoline exhaust was possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)", 好像又跟柴油引擎排放物沒關係
前面不是寫得很清楚了, IARC是WHO下單位, 負責依據其流行病學及動物毒理實驗證據，區分不同物質其致癌等級, 然後目前IARC已將柴油引擎排放物歸類為第一級致癌物質, 應該沒錯吧! 跟WHO的禁另有關係嗎, 應該沒有人提到吧?
因為我英文很不好, 可以麻煩你就IARC聲明內容做個翻譯給大家瞭解嗎?
另外對於IARC所引用的研究文獻有意見的話, 例如起始變數與假設條件這些的, 你覺得我應該聽國際學術期刊發表的文章以及國際單位的看法, 還是聽信一個註冊不到一個月的帳號的看法?
我很懷疑你任何的學歷是怎麼畢業的
姑且不談你wayc吧
我用U.S. Department of Labor
對Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training; Final Rule.
中diesel exhaust中的規範
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13870
http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/505/505-F2012-ROP.pdf中
505-8 Log #17 Final Action: Reject
(3.3.2.5 DX)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Jeffrey H. Bailey, Man Lift Manufacturing Co.
Recommendation: Proposal is to create a group to develop the DX standard.
Substantiation: Problem: There is not an accepted standard for Diesel Powered trucks for Class I, Division 1.
There is an industrial need for these in
the United States. Some people have excepted ATEX and some people use
equipment that may be designed using various references as design guides.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The proposal fails to provide sufficient information for
the committee to act upon. However, existing 1.3.4 provides that testing and
labeling of industrial trucks addressed in this standard are under UL 558, which
does not currently address Type DX trucks.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8
Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bichan, S., Tyrer, B
再繼續檢視ATEX standard這個對排氣的標準
http://www.siracertification.com/UserDocs/resource%20info/Diesel%20Engines.pdf
你wayc不需要相信我這個帳號,你可以相信規範!!!!
並且麻煩你wayc去找一輛不符合ATEX standard的車子來(記得去第三世界找,"可能"會找的到!!)
若WHO already issue an order...........
人家還這樣寫,WHO就可以被廢掉了!
你wayc根本是把雞毛當令箭,繼續扯皮吧
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X