Not that I tend to put much stock in it, but there's at least one major study (railroad workers) that actually concluded that there was a decreasing risk of cancer with increasing length of exposure to diesel exhaust:
"…The Panel’s analysis of the exposure-response association in the railroad worker data showed that the evidence for a positive association of lung cancer with cumulative exposure to diesel exhaust depends entirely on differences in risks among job categories. Train workers (with higher exposures) have higher risks compared with clerks (with low or no exposure).
However, within all job categories, the relation of lung cancer risk to duration of employment is negative…. " (emphasis added)
http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/DieselEpi-C.pdf (HEI, Diesel Emissions and Lung Cancer: Epidemiology and Quantitative Risk Assessment, p. 40 (June 1999))
As far as gasoline exhaust vs. diesel exhaust is concerned, I'm still perplexed as to why diesel exhaust is touted as this terribly dangerous concoction while gas exhaust somehow gets a free pass. There's no reason to believe gas exhaust is any less dangerous/carcinogenic. As a matter of fact, a CDC study concludes that gas PM/semi-volatiles is generally more biologically active than diesel PM per unit mass basis:
#ad
(
http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2002/wallace.pdf )
This is beside the fact that gas exhaust has been shown to contain higher levels of not only CO, but other air toxics like benzene and formaldehyde, and that's comparing engine-out (uncontrolled) diesel emissions compared to gas exhaust with a catalytic converter:
#ad
(
http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2000/eberharpa.pdf )
Assuming that diesel exhaust is much more hazardous than gas exhaust is a huge leap of faith, in my opinion.