You are not going to get peer reviewed statistically valid data for a more recent period than 2011, it takes time to collate, review, assess, check, review, write up, check, review the data, a lot of time.  Even in the NHS it takes time, I know this as my sister works for the NHS doing statistics.  Sumission of papers to journals can quite often take 12-18 months before they are published.

 

Epidemological studies take a long time to undertake, it can be 10, 20+ years, especially when looking at cancer.  Biochemical assessments looking at mechanisms that could cause cancer do happen quicker but they do not necessarily reflect what happens in the human body.  Interestingly mesothelioma is very difficult to study as it takes so long to develop you can't really study it in animals as they don't live long enough.

 

I have spent a significant amount of time searching and I cannot find any reliable information to support your assertions.  What I do come across when including the word epidemic is websites with references to apartame causing cancer, which is not a good sign.  Even WHO do not talk about an epidemic, nor do the NHS.

 

Hi trundlenut, indeed. The report I have came out in 2014 incorporating much new information and stats and has been 10 years in the making and is still only part complete. They release findings on a regular basis if it's deemed to be useful. Research like this is often on going and just doesn't stop. There is always something to learn. It's often the way. My wife worked for a well known very large hospital in the medical library. They got stuff from all over the world way before you could google it but of course, they had to pay for much of it just like our organisation had to, and then our boys compile the report for us engineers in the format we need. But this is now just getting too far off topic in my view and I cannot help you with copies of my report for reasons already mentioned. And to be fair and no disrespect, you wouldn't understand it anyway as every part of it is intermixed with complex engineering data for page after page after page. Even we had a weeks training course to enable us to read it and translate the data into working format. 

Are you now employed by a DPF manufacturing company, by any chance?

 

Just a thought  

 

Have never worked for anyone like that!  The firm I worked for was employed by universities and private contractors, sometimes a car company or bike company.

Estate Man, I have no beef with your desire to see reduced levels of diesel particulates in the environment, but I find your moral stance on your tall steed just a little rich given that you happily drove around in your non-DPF 1.4 TDi for several years before you changed it for your 1.6 petrol estate.

Just saying.

 

Firstly, I don't have a tall steed, just a lot of information gather through my work which I've tried to bring to this thread. But I hope we all have a moral stance on this and similar things, for all the reasons mentioned by many folks in this thread. If no one challenges the anti-social effects of dpf removal then you don't get a long thread like this one, and whatever you think about it, does make people reflect. You'll note that the OP (and others) are not going to remove their dpf's now. Job done in my book. My pd non dpf engine was dirty by comparison to modern cr engines with a dpf.  However, although a smokey engine by comparison, the pd engine produced less nano particulate matter of the most damaging size and this made them less of a risk. The pd engine was finished however due to it's inability to meet the future emissions laws and further performance and noise criteria. The pd's smoke soot is harmless as it can easily be self cleaned from the lungs, unlike the nano particulates. The older the diesel engine design the safer they were. And, weren't we all driving the pd as it was designed 99% without a dpf, and at a time when the link to cancer was not proven like it is now?

 

PS. I do have other diesel engined vehicles all with a modern dpf. 

Edited 27 June, 201411 yr by Estate Man

Firstly, I don't have a tall steed, just a lot of information gather through my work which I've tried to bring to this thread. But I hope we all have a moral stance on this and similar things, for all the reasons mentioned by many folks in this thread. If no one challenges the anti-social effects of dpf removal then you don't get a long thread like this one, and whatever you think about it, does make people reflect. You'll note that the OP (and others) are not going to remove their dpf's now. Job done in my book. My pd non dpf engine was dirty by comparison to modern cr engines with a dpf.  However, although a smokey engine by comparison, the pd engine produced less nano particulate matter of the most damaging size and this made them less of a risk. The pd engine was finished however due to it's inability to meet the future emissions laws and further performance and noise criteria. The pd's smoke soot is harmless as it can easily be self cleaned from the lungs, unlike the nano particulates. The older the diesel engine design the safer they were. And, weren't we all driving the pd as it was designed 99% without a dpf, and at a time when the link to cancer was not proven like it is now?

 

PS. I do have other diesel engined vehicles all with a modern dpf.

Fair points, EM and a good post. I don't support DPF removal and they are rightly here to stay - but I really hope the designs improve quickly so that clogging/regen issues become a thing of the past, along with these heated debates.

I have to say that I can easily understand the scepticism about the severity of the health issues associated with diesel nanoparticulates - you may have compelling evidence in your possession but there really isn't a great deal of solid evidence in the public domain (so far) to strongly link diesel emissions with various cancers; perhaps you need to take this a bit more into consideration before condemning the 'doubters' so readily!

Firstly, I don't have a tall steed, just a lot of information gather through my work which I've tried to bring to this thread. But I hope we all have a moral stance on this and similar things, for all the reasons mentioned by many folks in this thread. If no one challenges the anti-social effects of dpf removal then you don't get a long thread like this one, and whatever you think about it, does make people reflect. You'll note that the OP (and others) are not going to remove their dpf's now. Job done in my book. My pd non dpf engine was dirty by comparison to modern cr engines with a dpf.  However, although a smokey engine by comparison, the pd engine produced less nano particulate matter of the most damaging size and this made them less of a risk. The pd engine was finished however due to it's inability to meet the future emissions laws and further performance and noise criteria. The pd's smoke soot is harmless as it can easily be self cleaned from the lungs, unlike the nano particulates. The older the diesel engine design the safer they were. And, weren't we all driving the pd as it was designed 99% without a dpf, and at a time when the link to cancer was not proven like it is now?

 

PS. I do have other diesel engined vehicles all with a modern dpf.

So you've slated Silver for his comments on dpf removal on an older vrs with a pd engine in earlier posts but you are now saying the pd engine produced less nano particulates than most and hence was less risky... ??? Seems a bit strange...

Funny how every month or so someone feels the need to pull the pin out of this particular subject, throw it and watch the fireworks :P

 

So you've slated Silver for his comments on dpf removal on an older vrs with a pd engine in earlier posts but you are now saying the pd engine produced less nano particulates than most and hence was less risky... ??? Seems a bit strange...

 

Hi skomaz, well, the thread is about dpf removal from the cr engines, but any dpf removal in my book is a bad thing. Ideally, all PD's should have had a dpf but the engine emitted too much smoke to make them last a long time. Smoke of course, not being dangerous in the same way as any nano's. Silver101 is displaying he has cr engined cars now. Those are what we are talking about I assumed, as was the OP. I have two cr engined vehicles with dpf's (both large engines 2.5ltr and 3ltr) and the amount of nano's from both of those even though both are brand new is just incredible with dpf removed. I'd already tested the 3ltr engine last year with it's dpf removed under lab conditions. 17 times more nano's of the most damaging kind compared to when the dpf is fitted. Without the CAT the Nox when through the roof by around 30 times as much (that stuff can dissolve lung tissue). On the road that translates to even more nano's. So not a good thing to be doing. It's not just cancers these things cause, but a whole bunch of lung problem such as asthma which is also rising exponentially.

Edited 28 June, 201411 yr by Estate Man

I'm no technician, nor a medical genius, but I'm really struggling to come to terms with all of this

 

Old school diesels presumably still chucked out particles, but not 'nanoparticles'

 

Those particles were not visible to the human eye, ie you didn't see chunks flying out of the exhaust pipe

 

I don't, therefore, understand why so-called 'nanoparticles' are so much more dangerous than particles, nor why the body apparently manages to discharge particles more easily than 'nanoparticles' 

 

Working on the conspiracy theory, I'm thinking that the inventor of the DPF has got into the mind of some so-called 'medical expert' to come up with a report linking 'nanoparticles' to 'the big C', and make millions for himself in the process

 

Fair points, EM and a good post. I don't support DPF removal and they are rightly here to stay - but I really hope the designs improve quickly so that clogging/regen issues become a thing of the past, along with these heated debates.

I have to say that I can easily understand the scepticism about the severity of the health issues associated with diesel nanoparticulates - you may have compelling evidence in your possession but there really isn't a great deal of solid evidence in the public domain (so far) to strongly link diesel emissions with various cancers; perhaps you need to take this a bit more into consideration before condemning the 'doubters' so readily!

 

Indeed MW, I can assure you the next generation diesels will be even better. The last one we finished working on met current and all future legislation and will go far beyond. But those engines won't be released until 2020 or later after Euro 6 & 7. Compared to current diesels there is virtually no nox or particulate matter. Until then, most manufacturers are reducing the availability of diesel engined vehicles in their ranges, substituting petrol turbo cars in there place. Ironically, petrol engine particulate matter has also been increasing due to high compression ratios and higher combustion pressures (not necessarily the same thing) due to turbo's. I won't go there with the health consequences as petrol particulates can be even more dangerous than diesel nano's. And I don't want to be accused of being a 'scaremonger' again. But again, it's important to leave all emission equipment in place.

Regarding the general scepticism on the part of the public (some parts of the public) I don't actually think it's that although there are some who do it naively without knowing the consequences. I don't condemn them but I do think it's important to inform them. There is plenty of evidence in the press (see my links) and media, TV particularly (the place most get information from) confirming cancer with diesel particulates. The One Show did a superb report on diesel particulates a few months ago. But I think the issue is much deeper than that. We seem to live in a much different world now where many think they can do just as they like and often do irrespective of the law or it's spirit. This, regardless of the consequences for themselves or the rest of us. I'll now be condemned for saying this no doubt but many others on here also support this theory. Some of whom have posted in this thread. So I'm far from alone in saying what I believe and have observed. But I've said all I'm going to say on this now. Got a busy weekend to take care of.

Hi Brimma, it sounds mad doesn't it. Yeah, your right! Old school diesels, and that includes the PD engine to some degree put out much larger particulate matter on the whole. Much of this can be seen as smoke (not very harmful). Some, but not much is nano particulate matter and in older engines the nano particulates are still not very damaging as they are big compared to cr engined nano's. The bigger smoke particles are breathed in and easily recognised by the body and immediately the lungs go about cleaning this stuff out. No problem. Even the nano's from earlier engines are not too problematic in that respect. But cr engine nano's are so tiny that they cannot be seen and the body does not recognise they are there. So they are not attacked by the immune system and wrapped up like bigger particles ready for ejection. As a result, the particles, which are made up of some very nasty stuff (including benzine) are free to find their way around the body and penetrate blood vessels where often they lodge in the brain due to the complex nature of the brains construction. Once there, they are now proven to cause cancer of all types. Unfortunately, if you drive for an hour on a busy motorway, the amount of nano's you are exposed to inside your car as a driver or passenger is unsafe in the long term. The nano's come in through the pollen filter (they cannot be filtered out by it) and gather inside the cabin in increasing amounts. If you follow a car with the dpf removed you'll get an even bigger dose. But don't worry about it. We are all affected in the same way and not all of us will have problems. But it is something that the g'ment is dealing with and that's why the new rule about dpf removal at mot time etc etc.

PS. I'm definitely gone now on this!

Edited 28 June, 201411 yr by Estate Man

I'm saddened that we live in a society where it's apparently ok to insult and generally lambast someone who clearly knows more about a subject than the rest of us, purely because we find the currently available solutions disagreeable to our wallets.

By all means exhibit those levels of cynicism toward our miserably under-educated and corrupt politicians, but leave our scientists and engineers out of it. Without them you'd be walking to work anyway...

The MOT test looks as though it will getting deeper into checking emissions equipment:

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/how-the-eu-roadworthiness-package-affects-the-mot/

20th May 2018 looks to be a key date:

The use of tailpipe or OBD for emission inspections under certain conditions for Euro 5 or 6 engines. Euro 5 tailpipe or conditional OBD (On Board Diagnostics), Euro 6 free choice between tailpipe or OBD

I wouldn't believe anything that the government or DVSA or any body else says about future MOT regs as I know myself as a MOT tester they say they are going to change a few things then do a 'u' turn.

It has come in to the test that where a DPF was fitted (and has been removed) is a failure. In my slight experience doesn't effect the diesel emissions test if a DPF is removed.

And now company's are creating new additives that clean out DPF's.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm saddened that we live in a society where it's apparently ok to insult and generally lambast someone who clearly knows more about a subject than the rest of us, purely because we find the currently available solutions disagreeable to our wallets.

By all means exhibit those levels of cynicism toward our miserably under-educated and corrupt politicians, but leave our scientists and engineers out of it. Without them you'd be walking to work anyway...

Bear in mind that the lambasting has gone both ways. Some of us on here are also engineers and scientists and also have knowledge of the subject of vehicle emissions, albeit from a different perspective. This is why we have Been asking for the data and reports and evidence that is being quoted and why we have been very careful with regard to the specific wording of the legalities etc. and have been pointing out the inaccuracies in interpretation.

Christ. Just read through all of that trying to learn a few things.

Id be interested to know how dangerous those old buses are that i see so many of around here.

They chuck out a right cloud of black smoke. Cant be good? I assume busses have quite a large capacity engine too.

Maybe a bus scrappage scheme is in order haha.

And a scrappage scheme for some of the Rubbish Euro 5 Emission cars that people bought with the £2,000 towards the purchase,

from the last Scrappage Scheme in 2009-2010,

The scrappage scheme that had old cars going off the road,

ones with a MOT that in some cases actually were less polluting than some of these now 5 year old cars that replaced them.

Well, now its official… Remove the DPF, fail the MOT! It is against the law to remove and as such, will automatically fail the MOT.

What more Official now than before,

more official & against the law than when the OP first posted?  

 

What is the Offence you are going to be prosecuted under, do you have a refferrence to it?

 

If you fail your MOT is it not the case you need to have the reason for the failure rectified, in this case have a DPF refitted, and then retested, 

so you will be legal, or you should not on the Road if you have no MOT.

 

If you Remove the DPF and it does pass an MOT, as many still do,

then you get stopped and the car is inspected & Expert Evidence gathered & is given

because your car is Seized & Inspected, then i suppose you might well be up for Prosecution,

if the 'Laws' are actually in place now in England & Wales, or in Scotland & Northern Ireland for taking you to Court.

Statute Law. a Criminal Offence or a Traffic Offence.  

 

Or this Construction & Use Act Offence, is it UK only or EU Wide.?

Let's all celebrate Recycled Argument Friday!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Argument or forum discussions on a subject,  with the odd post that has nothing to do with the subject?

It is most certainly an mot failure to remove the DPF but the test only requires a visual check at present. Yes there are tighter emissions regs in the pipeline that may or may not happen. The chances that a car will ever be required to meet the emissions stated on the V5 are too far away for me to worry about

 

However when a dpf is removed it is cut open, gutted ie the internals removed and welded back up so looks like this

 

 

An mot tester wont be able to see the weld. So personally I will risk it and will be informing my insurance company of my modified exhaust, but then I've always been a rebel

And they will say the same as my insurers, "sorry we cannot insurer your car as it has an illegal modification for road use"! That's what mine said when I asked them just 2 weeks ago in connection with this thread. They wouldn't even insure it to get it to a workshop for rectification, saying it would have to be trailered. Interesting as always.

Ok, quoting from Which? magazine, in an article dated july 2014, as follows...

 

"Car owners who paid to remove their-vehicle's diesel particulate filter (DPF) now face an instant failure when their car goes for its annual MOT test".  

 

 

 The article then spouts a bit from the AA saying typical prices of at least £1000 for a new filter, hence many owners paying to have it removed.  It further quotes, "New regulations have put an end to this by stating that any vehicle that was fitted with a DPF when new, but no longer has one, will automatically fail the MOT test". 

 

There is then a quote from road minister, Robert Goodwill (Goodwill, Pah?) where he said, "Vehicles are being modified in a way that is clearly detrimental to people's health and undoes the hard work car manufacturers have taken to improve emissions standards. The government had to clarify the position on particulate filter removal given the unacceptable negative impact on air quality".

 

The actually quotes I have repeated, the other bits just paraphrased as I am using this as a guide and do not want to be accused of stealing an article, just passing on some vital information, as a Which? subscriber.

 

Although they do not mention specific legislation, as a class leading consumer rights champion, I would have the utmost faith in them giving accurate information. 

 

Based on this, even conversion with relevant information given to the DVSA, would not help you pass the MOT as it clearly states vehicles fitted with the filter FROM NEW!

 

Personally, I cannot see the difference in having the removal, compared to not fitted to start with but then, we all went out and paid for the DPF option so can't really moan. I was happy enough saving a hundred quid a year on road tax, compared to the next model without the filter.

 

It was only due to this fitment, we got low cost road tax so man up, grin and bare it!

As an aside, I run a DPF fitted Greenline as a driving school car… Plenty of stops and starts, low speed stuff, etc but run up and down a local dual carriageway fairly often for about ten-fifteen mins. this seems to either regen or keep the filter fairly clean. 70,000 miles and counting! Shold be easy for a commuter/social use driver to keep clean!

I agree mrgf. I don't know of anyone personally who has had a dpf problem, but obviously there are some, mostly folk who do very very low miles and/or who don't read the handbook concerning looking after the dpf. My nephew runs his own body shop and garage and has mostly had young guns coming in wanting the dpf removed because they think it's 'cool'! Don't think he's ever hand anyone wanting it removed because it's not working. He refuses all requests and to date has no plans to ever adopt that type of work. He's in the business of keeping cars legal.