N3WMAN
Well-known member
That article states that the last time their was a decrease was in 1993, not that it peaked in 1993. US life expectancy is still on the rise(78.74).However, Not as high as Canada (81.24)
Are we breathing in tire and brake dust?
- Thread starter -D-
- Start date
Except when, given as how most brake pads are not asbestos based anymore, that dust is pretty harmless.
Is this statement factual or for display purposes only?
ajaxguy
Well-known member
Can I like this post like facebook?
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Health research studies have reasonably found negative health outcomes to living near high traffic roads. This has been in the literature for years, with better and more studies coming all the time. It is a mix of emissions, and the affected distance can be 300-500 meters from the road.
LOL @ brakedust is harmless.
How one can tell PP is talking BS? Words appear beside his name.
LOL @ brakedust is harmless.
How one can tell PP is talking BS? Words appear beside his name.
Read for yourself. Here's the very scientific study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315878/
For the TLDR crowd, here's a few important excerpts:
EDIT: The forum software munged some of the content and interpreted it as colour codes so I had to cut a lot of it out, but read it in its original format in the above link if you wish instead...)
Long story short for the "even that was TLDR" few, yeah, there are some small amounts of bad things in everything involving cars, including brake pads, but (despite attempts) in the post asbestos brake pad (an important fact for the few who apparently think brake pads are still made of asbestos?) world there's been no adverse health effects connected to brake dust.
So you support my view in the first half of your quote, and then dismiss it in the second half? Did you even read what you posted?
So, let's all use some critical thinking skills here - if brake dust (again, quantifying in the post asbestos era) was an evil toxin that was such a high risk you'd see every mechanic and quickie lube grease monkey under the sun coming down with all sorts of related illnesses. That doesn't seem to be the case.
I remember doing brakes with my old man back in the early 80's - he was a mechanic who owned his own 3 bay transmission and general repair shop. I spent a lot of time there growing up. Pads were asbestos then and there was some rudimentary precautions taken, although even then it wasn't "hazmat suit" type things. Most of those guys lived to ripe old ages, so forgive me if I refuse to believe unsubstantiated paranoia in which a modern day pad that is the greater majority either iron or ceramic by weight is somehow a death trap hiding behind our wheels.
Vehicle exhaust is far more worthy of concern. There ARE lots of connective studies linking it to health issues, main reason being is the content is far more harmful vs Iron and ceramic compounds from brake pads.
Last edited:
They are? That's like dog poo central down there.
There was a news paper article that came out a few years ago that indicated the region of the GTA with the highest air pollution was right around where the 427 and QEW/Gardener meet. I was looking to buy a condo and went to see some units in Mystic Point that faced the highway and also across the street. The amount of dust on the windows was pretty significant and condo corps get them cleaned at least 1x a year.
It's a good thing the Shoei comes with a the chin curtain to block all that stuff out.
That's far enough away. The ones I saw were at 4th story and right at the Gardiner level and facing the highway directly, so the view out the windows was the rush hour at eye level. I have a place on Fort York and it's also a bit away from the highway, but still one has to wonder...
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Yup, as usual you are a poster boy for confirmation bias and cherry picking evidence to suit your dream world. On top of that you then make sh8t up to extrapolate to a completely baseless conclusion. This is the worst type of posting. Using Google search results with little to no capacity to accurately interpret the information. You are literally interpreting that statement about as poorly as possible.
Newsflash, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Comprehensive studies in the fields of air pollution are often unable to reasonably evaluate the health impacts of PM from different sources as it is a huge soup of different types, especially when nearly ubiquitous sources are of note. So the/these studies don't even try to. Those studies don't exist. I haven't observed a study that has even attempted to evaluate something like the epidemiological evidence of health effects from pm brake dust, can't reasonably separate it out from the other pm fraction sources and still have a strong enough signal in the epi data. Hence the toxicological evaluation which helps to determine the plausibility of potential of adverse effects from a compound or compounds.
Research is very well established that UFPs, PM2.5 and PM10 causes adverse health outcomes. Duh, so of course the fractions from brake dust can result in adverse health outcomes. Especially considering the toxic materials found in used brake dust (the tox studies).
I don't see any critical thinking here at all. LOL. Anecdotes central. Comparative dismissing, mischaracterizing information. No one said modern brake pads are a "death trap". LOL.
Look up all the health issues associated with being a mechanic. Here are the chemical hazards alone from the ILO occupational hazard datasheet for the auto mechanic occupation.
Exposure to a wide range of industrial chemicals including heavy metals, contained in brake fluids, degreasers,
detergents, lubricants, metal cleaners, paints, fuel, solvents, etc., resulting in various forms of chronic poisoning:
- Skin diseases and conditions (various types of dermatitis, skin sensitization, eczema, oil acne, etc.)
caused by various chemicals, e.g.: adhesives, asbestos, antifreeze and brake fluids, epoxy resins,
gasoline, oils, nickel, colophon etc.
- Eye irritation, dizziness, nausea, breathing problems, headaches, etc., caused by contact with irritating
chemicals and their dusts and fumes, e.g.: antiknock agents (such as methylpentadienyl manganese
tricarbonyl [MMT]), ketone solvents (such as methyl isobutyl keton [MIK]) etc.
- Asbestosis and mesothelioma caused by asbestos dust from brake drum cleaning and processing operation
- Chronic poisoning resulting from exposure to lead and its dust and fumes (esp. while repairing radiators,
handling storage batteries, welding, using paints and lubricants, etc.)
- Hematological changes as a result of exposure to solvents, such as benzene and its homologues, toluene,
xylene, etc.
- Increased risk of cancer due to inhalation of diesel exhaust fumes or contact with certain heavy metals
and their compounds, asbestos, benzene etc.
- Increased risk of organic brain damage due to inhalation of diesel exhaust fumes
- Acute eye and mucous membrane irritation, headaches, breathing difficulties, chest tightness etc., caused
by inhalation of NOx and respirable particulates
- Gastrointestinal disturbances as a result of accidental or chronic ingestion of adhesives
Here is a basic common sense supposition. Take brake material with various metals and other compounds, known to cause adverse human health effects, and subject it to extreme heat and shearing with the potential for funky reactions as well as various particulate size formation including ufp. Add that into the atmosphere with a soup of other PM and gas contaminants, where even more funky reactions take place. Now have people breath it in, significantly, chronically, old people, young people, sensitive people, insensitive people, etc. Of course there can reasonably be toxic or negative health effects, at least in some people. PM studies of the overall chemical soup show that.
Fact is they have studied PM around roadways and found negative health outcomes when comparing the populations living around those areas versus away from them. Living near a roadway is detrimental to population health. Obviously the sources of PM are fossil fuel combustion, tires, brake dust, and resuspended dust.
Research at this time just can't quantify the adverse health effects from the brake dust component in any significant detail. To which I say who cares? The overall soup is most relevant since that is what people are exposed to.
Last edited:
So, I don't like the evidence there is, therefore I'll decide to discount it and believe my own, or in the absence thereof, use the famous "just because there's no evidence it doesn't mean it's not an issue" excuse so famous online. The antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists love that one.
There's a great insurance related discussion going on right now in another thread with a similar theme that you'd probably enjoy, but anyhow....
I'm not debating there are not health risks with many things on vehicles. Oil, cleaners, adhesives, etc etc. Hell, even "new car smell" is well known as a toxic soup of chemicals. Sure, no debate. We're not talking about that though, we're talking about brake dust. What I am saying is that, once again in the post asbestos brake pad/shoes era (a key part which apparently you have STILL MISSED, having quoted it again in your citation above, so I'll emphasise it this time) can not be associated with a measureable health risk.
This is a big complicated study. All sorts of fancy science-ey stuff that scares some people. Done by a government agency. And they couldn't find correlation.
So, how about moving forward, since I've provided a nice scientific study (as requested to backup my stance) that proves no issues can be correlated, that you backup your side with some factual scientific evidence that exposure to modern day brake dust correlates to specific illnesses as a result. Please stick to North American studies as overseas the situation is different - some countries still allow asbestos friction materials, so the results are invalid for the purpose of the discussion on this side of the pond.
And remember, we're talking brake dust, not muddying the water as you attempted above by mixing in all sorts of other contaminants. For the purpose of the discussion it's irrelevant that the benzene in the gasoline in the cars gas tank is a known carcinogen, as is used motor oil, or the adhesive used to glue the headliner in offgasses VOC's. And yes, there's no debate that there are low-level contents in the composition of brake dust that may not be the healthiest when concentrated beyond typical brake dust exposure levels (the study clearly mentions some of them), but again, if you want to get into the nitty gritty details, remember the toxicology mantra - the dosage makes the poison. You can die from drinking too much water (a chemical) too quickly, but is water inherently toxic or considered dangerous by correlation?
We're talking brake dust. And if the word "asbestos" is part of whatever you post as evidence, re-read my reply again.
There's a great insurance related discussion going on right now in another thread with a similar theme that you'd probably enjoy, but anyhow....
I'm not debating there are not health risks with many things on vehicles. Oil, cleaners, adhesives, etc etc. Hell, even "new car smell" is well known as a toxic soup of chemicals. Sure, no debate. We're not talking about that though, we're talking about brake dust. What I am saying is that, once again in the post asbestos brake pad/shoes era (a key part which apparently you have STILL MISSED, having quoted it again in your citation above, so I'll emphasise it this time) can not be associated with a measureable health risk.
This is a big complicated study. All sorts of fancy science-ey stuff that scares some people. Done by a government agency. And they couldn't find correlation.
So, how about moving forward, since I've provided a nice scientific study (as requested to backup my stance) that proves no issues can be correlated, that you backup your side with some factual scientific evidence that exposure to modern day brake dust correlates to specific illnesses as a result. Please stick to North American studies as overseas the situation is different - some countries still allow asbestos friction materials, so the results are invalid for the purpose of the discussion on this side of the pond.
And remember, we're talking brake dust, not muddying the water as you attempted above by mixing in all sorts of other contaminants. For the purpose of the discussion it's irrelevant that the benzene in the gasoline in the cars gas tank is a known carcinogen, as is used motor oil, or the adhesive used to glue the headliner in offgasses VOC's. And yes, there's no debate that there are low-level contents in the composition of brake dust that may not be the healthiest when concentrated beyond typical brake dust exposure levels (the study clearly mentions some of them), but again, if you want to get into the nitty gritty details, remember the toxicology mantra - the dosage makes the poison. You can die from drinking too much water (a chemical) too quickly, but is water inherently toxic or considered dangerous by correlation?
We're talking brake dust. And if the word "asbestos" is part of whatever you post as evidence, re-read my reply again.
Lets not forget homeopathy where known poisons, diluted sufficiently, are reportedly good for you and call cure all sorts of illnesses.
Accordingly, perhaps brake dust is a cure for cancer.
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek)
kwtoxman
Well-known member
I tried. You just don't get it. It's not about discounting evidence. There are no comp studies done saying anything one way or the other wrt the contribution of brake dust to the overall PM health effect! You are saying a lack of comprehensive epi studies which results in a lack of evidence means that brake dust is not toxic! Non-sequitur to put it mildly. The comp studies may come in the future for that subcomponent of PM, but there are none at this time. Though there are lots of indirect studies showing toxicity of brake dust.
It's not about muddying. The conversation here is about brake dust as part of the PM being harmful at concentrations round roadways. That is not brake dust in isolation. Continue to ignore that brake dust emitted into the environment results in various potential environmental reactions that have the potential to make air pollution more toxic.
Here's a study showing toxic effects of non-asbestos brake dust.
http://www.bdebate.org/sites/defaul...flemming_cassee_urbanair_barcelona_110713.pdf
in vivo health effects of brake dust in the lungs of mice.
– Inflammation
– Cytotoxicity
– Oxidative stress
– Heart and blood vessel damage
A few of the conclusions.
- Yes, non-exhaust PM can be more hazardous than tailpipe PM
- Composition plays a major role and can be optimized
- IF oxidative potential is a good predictor for health effects, brake wear may be more harmful than road and tire dust
Your dose bit is just off base. You seem to want to now talk about dose being important. You never said that before. You said brake dust is not toxic. Period. Yes, the dose makes the poison. aka paracelsus. Look at my handle, lol. Duh. So yes, water can be toxic. Just like I'm saying brake dust can be toxic. Though I find lots of supporting info showing it is likely to be toxic at ambient air concentrations around high traffic roads. LOL at arguing dose now. That was never the point and I see no merit to getting into a debate on dose now all of a sudden. I made my dose consideration obvious from the beginning. Your next sentence relating "inherent toxicity" to dose shows your ignorance of this whole field.
It's not about muddying. The conversation here is about brake dust as part of the PM being harmful at concentrations round roadways. That is not brake dust in isolation. Continue to ignore that brake dust emitted into the environment results in various potential environmental reactions that have the potential to make air pollution more toxic.
Here's a study showing toxic effects of non-asbestos brake dust.
http://www.bdebate.org/sites/defaul...flemming_cassee_urbanair_barcelona_110713.pdf
in vivo health effects of brake dust in the lungs of mice.
– Inflammation
– Cytotoxicity
– Oxidative stress
– Heart and blood vessel damage
A few of the conclusions.
- Yes, non-exhaust PM can be more hazardous than tailpipe PM
- Composition plays a major role and can be optimized
- IF oxidative potential is a good predictor for health effects, brake wear may be more harmful than road and tire dust
Your dose bit is just off base. You seem to want to now talk about dose being important. You never said that before. You said brake dust is not toxic. Period. Yes, the dose makes the poison. aka paracelsus. Look at my handle, lol. Duh. So yes, water can be toxic. Just like I'm saying brake dust can be toxic. Though I find lots of supporting info showing it is likely to be toxic at ambient air concentrations around high traffic roads. LOL at arguing dose now. That was never the point and I see no merit to getting into a debate on dose now all of a sudden. I made my dose consideration obvious from the beginning. Your next sentence relating "inherent toxicity" to dose shows your ignorance of this whole field.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
It's called hormesis. LOL.
Again, the dose makes the poison. There is direct PM evidence showing adverse health effects around roadways, with overall PM measurement being the only measurement they have done in comp studies. Indirect studies show both that brake dust as a significant component of PM and that there is human/animal toxicity to it. More studies will come and better characterize both.
Last edited:
We apparently will have to agree to disagree.
But, just saying, when you look at the statistics of the riskiest jobs due to illness or disease...mechanic (logically, someone exposed to large concentrations of brake dust on a regular basis) isn't even on the radar. Pilots and truck drivers are there though, the former due to radiation (not an issue for me, I rarely go over 6000 feet) and crashes (well, sure, that could get me), and the latter due to clearly documented issues related to diesel exhaust...an issue which is rapidly improving with the introduction of SCR and DPF to heavy trucks.
But, just saying, when you look at the statistics of the riskiest jobs due to illness or disease...mechanic (logically, someone exposed to large concentrations of brake dust on a regular basis) isn't even on the radar. Pilots and truck drivers are there though, the former due to radiation (not an issue for me, I rarely go over 6000 feet) and crashes (well, sure, that could get me), and the latter due to clearly documented issues related to diesel exhaust...an issue which is rapidly improving with the introduction of SCR and DPF to heavy trucks.
