The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely.
The question was not which dosages of which chemicals would be more harmful for a short term exposure. That’s not relevant to answering the above question. In fact it likely has a different answer.
(For lag I’m referring to the lead/asbestos data. Exposure to these has been on the decline for decades but we’re still seeing deaths due to exposures 40 years ago), so they presumably cause an outsize number of deaths per year currently).
"The question was whether diesel could plausibly be “the next asbestos/lead” and the answer is yes, absolutely."
If you mean by perception only, then sure. These three things have existed together for a long time. If you eliminate the two more dangerous ones, then the remaining less dangerous/acute one will be next in priority and get the attention.
No, as noted and cited, the absolute numbers for diesel are worse than those for lead. That’s not perception, it’s fact. And we’ve absolutely not eliminated the other two because they still exist in the environment and everyone ever poisoned by them who is currently still alive is yet to appear in the death statistics, hence the lag.
The question was not which dosages of which chemicals would be more harmful for a short term exposure. That’s not relevant to answering the above question. In fact it likely has a different answer.
(For lag I’m referring to the lead/asbestos data. Exposure to these has been on the decline for decades but we’re still seeing deaths due to exposures 40 years ago), so they presumably cause an outsize number of deaths per year currently).