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.
BTW - the tariffs were not to protect jobs but to keep the owners from having to spend money on new facilities. It let the owners wear out the furnaces while investing in Korea.
FWIW - the new nuclear power plants under construction in the US will be made in Korea by a Japanese company. We no longer have the machinery to fabricate machinery that large.
IMHO - this is where we need a comprehensive plan a couple of decades long to replace all of our fossil fueled power plants with nuclear plants manufactured in the US and fueled by domestic uranium collected from coal plants waste piles.
Since no one else has cared to stick there neck out when presented with the numbers perhaps you might be interested?
You can start with the fact that mercury isn't the only hazardous chemical emitted by coal burning plants, so other chemicals go unmeasured in that study.
But you can also consider that mercury has impacts beyond neurocognitive development, which are discussed in other parts of that 500-page document, which you didn't mention.
Furthermore, there's the difficulty in actually measuring neurocognitive development, since IQ tests are very limited, which the study acknowledges.
Then you have their totally absurd methodology, where they try to assign a dollar value to an IQ point, based on earnings. That's really stretching it, but hey, it's your source.
And here's what else they say about the effects of environmental methylmercury exposure on IQ levels:
Quote:
It is important to recognize, however, that full-scale IQ might not be the cognitive
endpoint that is most sensitive to prenatal mercury exposure. Significant inverse associations
were found, in both the New Zealand and Faroe Islands studies, between prenatal mercury
levels and neurobehavioral endpoints other than IQ. If the effects of mercury are highly focal,
affecting only specific cognitive functions, taking full-scale IQ as the primary endpoint for a
benefits analysis might underestimate the impacts. In averaging performance over diverse
functions in order to compute full-scale IQ, the specific effects of mercury on only certain of
these functions would be “diluted,” and the estimated magnitude of the change in performance
per unit change in the mercury biomarker would be underestimated.
Moreover, it is well known that there may be substantial deficits in cognitive wellbeing
even in individuals with normal or above average IQ. The criterion most frequently used to
identify children with learning disabilities for the purposes of assignment to special education
services is a discrepancy between IQ and achievement. Specifically, the child’s achievement in
reading, math, or other academic areas is significantly lower than what would be expected,
given his or her full-scale IQ. Thus, there are deficits in cognitive functioning that are not
captured by IQ scores.
Oh, and here are two versions of the "bottom line" , according to the EPA:
Quote:
Our analysis predicts that this final rule will likely significantly reduce the risk of PM2.5-
related premature mortality among all populations of different races living throughout the U.S.
compared to both 2005 and 2016 pre-rule (i.e., base case) levels. The analysis indicates that
people living in counties with the highest rates (top 5 percent) of PM2.5 mortality risk in 2005
receive the largest reduction in mortality risk after this rule takes effect. We also estimate that
people living in the poorest 5 percent of the counties will experience a larger reduction in PM2.5
mortality risk when compared to all other counties. More information can be found below in
section 7.11.3.
Quote:
The estimated costs to implement the final MATS Rule, as described earlier in this
document, are approximately $9.6 billion annually for 2016 (2007 dollars). Thus, the net
benefits (benefits minus costs) of the program in 2016 are approximately $27 to 80 +B billion or
$24 to 71 +B billion annually (2007 dollars, based on a discount rate of 3 percent and 7 percent
for the benefits, respectively and rounded to two significant figures). (B represents the sum of
all unquantified benefits and disbenefits of the regulation.) Therefore, implementation of this
rule is expected, based purely on economic efficiency criteria, to provide society with a
significant net gain in social welfare, even given the limited set of health and environmental
effects we were able to quantify
Why do so many conservatives hate the environment? We shouldn't have been emitting mercury into public waters in the first place.
I hear a lot of pissing and moaning about energy prices, but ZERO responses regarding environmental concerns.
I guess you should go back and read coalman's post about mercury if your going to start howling about that. Obviously you missed it or like usual ignored it.
I guess you should go back and read coalman's post about mercury if your going to start howling about that. Obviously you missed it or like usual ignored it.
I guess you should s.t.f.u. and read what i just wrote.
I'm on the fence about supporting it, the bottom line is it makes economic sense. You'll drive the cost of conventional oil down, it's a resource that we have a huge supply of domestically and you'll jump start an industry that is going to emerge with or without government support.
If it were a renewable energy that had these benefits you'd have unanimous support for it, yes?
I think the goal of this admin is to make the price of fossil fuels rise to the level of the "green" energy to make it competitive instead of doing the sane thing and wait until the green stuff can compete with the price of fossil fuels. That is what I see anyway. Who loses out in the end. We all do.
You can start with the fact that mercury isn't the only hazardous chemical emitted by coal burning plants, so other chemicals go unmeasured in that study.
Firstly Mercury is the primary reason for this legislation and others are listed under the co benefits because without them the benefits go negative. The co benefits are mostly because of the reduction of PM and as noted by the documentation those are uncertain because they use a linear dose assessment to model them. In addition to that PM is already regulated by the EPA.
Quote:
Then you have their totally absurd methodology, where they try to assign a dollar value to an IQ point, based on earnings. That's really stretching it, but hey, it's your source.
This absurd methodology, your words not mine, is what is being used to justify these regulations. Your government at work, you realize this is EPA study?
Quote:
Oh, and here are two versions of the "bottom line" , according to the EPA:
Those are the co benefits and account for all of the benefits, they are unrelated to the reduction of mercury and as already noted very uncertain because they use a linear dose assessment.
Of course you don't. Higher electricity costs are no big deal...obama said so in 2008...his energy policy would result in skyrocketing costs AND would bankrupt the coal industry.
You always make these predictions....but for some reason they never happen.
I guess you should s.t.f.u. and read what i just wrote.
Now Cletus that was uncalled for. I suggest, AGAIN, you go back and read a thread instead of just jumping in howling. Violating the TOC of the website reflects badly upon you unless of course your a dem and get away with it like many do.
Firstly Mercury is the primary reason for this legislation and others are listed under the co benefits because without them the benefits go negative. The co benefits are mostly because of the reduction of PM and as noted by the documentation those are uncertain because they use a linear dose assessment to model them.
This absurd methodology, your words not mine, is what is being used to justify these regulations. Your government at work, you realize this is EPA study?
Those are the co benefits and account for all of the benefits, they are unrelated to the reduction of mercury and as already noted very uncertain because they use a linear dose assessment.
So what you're saying is, the parts of the study that support your views are methodologically sound, and the pages of the study that support my views are not?
My take is that mercury is bad for you, and I don't need the EPA to monetize the impact of methylmercury exposure on neurocognitive development to know that. You are the one who put the EPA forward as an expert source.
Now Cletus that was uncalled for. I suggest, AGAIN, you go back and read a thread instead of just jumping in howling. Violating the TOC of the website reflects badly upon you unless of course your a dem and get away with it like many do.
You violated the TOC in this post, and in your previous post, by little snide ad hominems. So pot needs to meet kettle.
and if you have something constructive to say about the post that I'd just made, besides blathering nonsense chiding me about not reading something that I'd, in fact, already read, then out with it already. If you've read it, you need to rebut what I said on its own merits, rather than attempting to change the subject to whether or not I'd read it.
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.
