I'm not surprised by that, Carol. And, that is RR related and On Topic. It would have helped more in the 60's and 70's though.....when we were breathing ten times the emissions from locos that we are breathing today....

We've fortunately been able to use our science and technological capabilities to lower the overall diesel emissions by nearly 90% over the last 25 years in new equipment, including locomotives. So compared to historic levels, current exposure diesel emissions levels are much lower, from much cleaner locos, trucks, busses, construction equipment. Hutch may be the exception, but he's huffing the exhaust stack......so that doesn't really count.

Exposure levels and the relative risk of the chemical can be a very important factors in the likelihood of developing lung diseases from emissions related sources. I'm drinking coffee as I write, and there is a very very very small increase in the "likelihood" that "Prop. 65" chemicals used to make coffee, might result in a few more cases of cancer per X hundred million coffee drinkers, in any given year. I don't eat basil, however, as it is much more toxic, contains known carcinogens, and though it sometime comes in "organically" farmed varieties, has a way far higher likelihood of causing cancer than drinking coffee.

There are many very dangerous carcinogens, where even a small exposure can be very dangerous, and there are many carcinogens, that require a great deal of exposure to show a likelihood of "causality".

Propositions 65 is an excellent example of the voters passing "well intended" legislation by ballot box, that requires notification of those chemicals regardless of the likely exposure risks from the amounts involved. Diesel emissions are unhealthful. that are not good for you to breath, and can cause disease, so informing folks and limiting those exposures is a good thing. Are Prop. 65 warnings the best way to make folks aware of those risks and dangers?

A risk based notification system based on a "level of risk" based rating system that tied to the likely risks of exposure and the relative danger of those chemicals, would make more sense from in protecting consumers from a public health standpoint. But we don't have that kind of law. We do have a current "all" "known" chemicals reporting law that voters passed. So newspapers printing Prop. 65 legal notices will continue to have at least a few customers.

As Rosanna Rosannadanna used to say: "It's always something..."