Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want to shut down this wonderful, life affirming industry would we. The coal industry is the poster child for the right wing, enviro-hating wackjobs.
"When mining companies level West Virginia mountains to get at the coal beneath, towns disappear.
When a Michigan power plant burns coal to make electricity, it triggers asthma in children nearby.
When coal ash blows onto a Paiute reservation in Nevada, elders die."
You use a study by a group that has claimed responsibility for actually seriously injuring people, and then start insulting and name calling others? Way to make your case.
Okay, how about some statistics that aren't from the Sierra Club?
- the CDC reports that from 1992 to 2002 12,000 coal miners died from black lung diseas
- The American Journal of Public Health reported that in 14 counties where the biggest coal mining operations are located residents had much higher rates of heart and lung disease
- coal - fired power plants are the primary source of mercury pollution in the U.S. releasing 48 tons of mercury nationwide - causing widespread fish contamination
- again they are the largest contributor of toxic air pollutants putting millions of Americans at increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, respiratory illness, and asthma
Why would anyone NOT want the plants that are not operating within emission controls to continue to operate? You would rather they continue to operate and purposefully poison more people? Just so you might pay a few pennies less on your utility bill. Again, if they close, it is because the owners are not willing to operate as they are required to by law, it is not the EPA's fault.
Well we would all be dead now if all that were true. All dead from evil coal. Somehow we are still here. How can that be. 84 DEADLY pollutants yet we are still alive. Say it aint so.
Okay, how about some statistics that aren't from the Sierra Club?
- the CDC reports that from 1992 to 2002 12,000 coal miners died from black lung diseas
- The American Journal of Public Health reported that in 14 counties where the biggest coal mining operations are located residents had much higher rates of heart and lung disease
- coal - fired power plants are the primary source of mercury pollution in the U.S. releasing 48 tons of mercury nationwide - causing widespread fish contamination
- again they are the largest contributor of toxic air pollutants putting millions of Americans at increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, respiratory illness, and asthma
Why would anyone NOT want the plants that are not operating within emission controls to continue to operate? You would rather they continue to operate and purposefully poison more people? Just so you might pay a few pennies less on your utility bill. Again, if they close, it is because the owners are not willing to operate as they are required to by law, it is not the EPA's fault.
The emission controls are nonsense. They control nothing, do nothing and prevent nothing. All that mercury yet nobody minds hangin mercury laced bulbs all over their homes. Now why is that? LOL
- coal - fired power plants are the primary source of mercury pollution in the U.S. releasing 48 tons of mercury nationwide - causing widespread fish contamination
Mercury is a global issue and in the grand scheme of things US coal plants account for about 1% of the global pool. Most of that enters the global cycle.
Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
EPA has conducted extensive analyses on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and subsequent regional patterns of deposition to U.S. waters. Those analyses conclude that regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters. That small contribution will be significantly reduced after EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule are implemented.
U.S. coal-fired power plants emit mercury in three different forms: oxidized mercury (likely to deposit within the U.S.); elemental mercury, which travels hundreds and thousands of miles before depositing to land and water; and mercury that is in particulate form.
Because mercury can be transported thousands of miles in the atmosphere, and because many types of fish are caught and sold globally, effective exposure reduction will require reductions in global emissions.
Quote:
- again they are the largest contributor of toxic air pollutants putting millions of Americans at increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, respiratory illness, and asthma
Since the 80's air pollution has been decreased a whopping 67% as an aggregate of the 6 most common air pollutants, why is it we've seen a dramatics increase in asthma in that same time frame?
Having said that let me explain how they arrive at these figure you often hear like prevent 10K heart attacks, 5K strokes, and 30K asthma cases". They use what is called a a linear dose assessment where every particle of pollution is considered equally as dangerous. For example if we did a study to get some hard data and threw 20 people off a 20 foot cliff and 10 die we then extrapolate that across an entire population. For every 400 feet a population is to fall 10 will die. If 40 people are thrown off a 10 foot cliff 10 still die, if 400 people are thrown off a 1 foot cliff 10 still die, if millions are thrown off a crack in the sidewalk 10 still die.
Quote:
Why would anyone NOT want the plants that are not operating within emission controls to continue to operate?
There is no plant operating without emissions controls. The current round of closures are older plants where retrofitting them to meet the new mercury emissions is not feasible and it would be cheaper to replace them in the long run. That won't happen because of the new CO2 cap proposal which will be effective in March.
As a last note the primary issue with mercury is neurological, the EPA estimates these new mercury rules will increase the average IQ 2/1000 of one point. Another estimate suggests mercury deposition rates in the US will degrease a whopping 1% to 10%...... This goes back to the global issue problem, if you were to eliminate every coal plant in the US you're going to have a negligible effect and due to the higher cost in power could actually increase them as more manufactures move their operations overseas.
You use a study by a group that has claimed responsibility for actually seriously injuring people, and then start insulting and name calling others? Way to make your case.
And to coal industry actually seriously injures people.
Your point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
