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.
I'd like to see a link to the original source of your quote. Having said that, no one denies that most of our exposure to mercury comes from fish. However, there are hotspots at many localities throughout the country, and most of those originate from industrial and power plant emissions and fly ash improperly landfilled and covered. In addition, the law does specifically relate to the fact that our pollution migrates not only outside of the region where it originated, but outside of our national boundaries. Just because our pollution gets blown into Canada or into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for it or that it has no impact.
The point of course is USA coal plants only account for 1% of the global pool, total US emissions are about 3%. Even the amounts leaving our borders are relatively small compared to Asia which is 50% of the global pool. Unless you adress China's emissions you're not doing anything.
The links for that information are in my previous posts however here they are again:
Quote:
Fact Sheet - Final Rule | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA
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.
Quote:
Controlling Power Plant Emissions: Mercury Emissions: The Global Context | Mercury | US EPA
The U.S. is the third largest emitter of anthropogenic mercury although its emissions, estimated to account for roughly three percent of the global total, are far lower than emissions from China, the largest source globally. In the U.S. and globally, coal combustion is the largest source of anthropogenic mercury emissions. (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment: Sources, Emissions and Transport (PDF), Geneva, 2008) (44 pp., 6.8M, about PDF).
EPA has estimated that about one third of U.S. emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle.
I believe most of that information comes form this study:
FYI the above study answered my question for the reason why remitted natural emissions are not included in the pie graph I posted is because they are combined in the total for natural emissions.
Quote:
I have seen studies that show local increases in asthma cases as a result of power plant emissions. I haven't been able to find the links I had to those, but will post them when I do. I do recall that at least one study inferred that those emissions exacerbate the condition for those (such as myself) who already have it.
That may be entirely possible but that doesn't answer the question why the population as a whole has seen an increase. It's not just those that live near power plants.
Quote:
I live in an apartment building that is at least 45 years old, ans is poorly insulated, with windows that leak like a sieve. So that hypothesis doesn't work for me, at least.
Perhaps you should try burning coal or wood. Form the experience of my forum members who have asthma most have reported it's the same or better after switching to coal. There is medical study that supports that but as noted it might just be because they are rural:
This study shows that in a rural population children of families using wood or coal for heating and cooking had a significant lower prevalence of hay fever, atopy, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness than children living in homes with other heating systems
*
Factors directly related to home wood or coal combustion may explain these findings
*
Alternatively, using coal and wood burning stoves indoors may be related to a more traditional life style with unknown protective factors that have been lost in families using other sources of energy such as gas, oil, or a central heating system
The point of course is USA coal plants only account for 1% of the global pool, total US emissions are about 3%. Even the amounts leaving our borders are relatively small compared to Asia which is 50% of the global pool. Unless you adress China's emissions you're not doing anything.
Last time I looked, we aren't responsible for what other countries do. We are only responsible for what we do. The idea that we don't have to do anything because other countries aren't is a rather lazy argument and sidesteps our own responsibilities to our own people and to those who live downwind of our pollution. It also sends a poor message to the rest of the world that we don't feel compelled to take on a leadership role on environmental issues. If we don't feel compelled, why should they?
Quote:
The links for that information are in my previous posts however here they are again:
I believe most of that information comes form this study:
FYI the above study answered my question for the reason why remitted natural emissions are not included in the pie graph I posted is because they are combined in the total for natural emissions.
Thanks fore the link. I will read it later this afternoon, when I get the chance.
Quote:
That may be entirely possible but that doesn't answer the question why the population as a whole has seen an increase. It's not just those that live near power plants.
I agree that it is an issue that needs more research.
Quote:
Perhaps you should try burning coal or wood. Form the experience of my forum members who have asthma most have reported it's the same or better after switching to coal.
Anecdotes, wherever they come from, are not scientific.
Quote:
There is medical study that supports that but as noted it might just be because they are rural:
I want to jump in on the asthma issue. First of all I would have to ask is it COPD? I've seen too many doctors descirbie my mothers condition as asthma, but COPD was listed on her death certificate. My father had it too. My spouse had COPD and Fibrosis. The fibrosis was end of the line.
My friend is a biologist and enviromentalist. He said Mold Spores is the #2 killer in IL behind heart failure. He explained everytime we walk in the yard we release it. Everytime we open windows and doors we invite it inslde. The only place we can escape it is to provide clean air inside our home.
Based soley on his expertise, when my spouse was diagnosed with the lung diseases I started a regimin of changing the air filters every two weeks. I dumped the foam filtes and eopte for the best 3M filter I could find. At the end of six years when my spouse died (average life of Fibrosis patients without a transplant) we were free of colds, virus and bacterial born illness, allergy flare ups and my spouse had no lung infections during this time. Smoke, of any type, I think is hard on lungs. I love a fireplace with a roaring fire but today mine is electric.
My father was in the foundry business for a lot of years. Most certainly silica and sand that is fine enough to breath and attach to clothing is a problem to the lungs. I think more study needs to be done in thse areas, I am not convinced we really inderstand lung disease completely quite yet.
Last time I looked, we aren't responsible for what other countries do. We are only responsible for what we do. The idea that we don't have to do anything because other countries aren't is a rather lazy argument and sidesteps our own responsibilities to our own people and to those who live downwind of our pollution. It also sends a poor message to the rest of the world that we don't feel compelled to take on a leadership role on environmental issues. If we don't feel compelled, why should they?
But again regulations should have a benefit, I want to know what the bottom line is. Industry estimates put the cost of this at 50 to 200 billion dollars, there's better ways to spend that kind of money if the benefits of mercury reduction are negligible.
Quote:
Anecdotes, wherever they come from, are not scientific.
This topic comes up a lot on my forum so there is lot of input from many people, it's not a small sample of just handful of people. I can only tell you what is the general consensus amongst those people that have actually used these products that are afflicted with this.
It might simply be the case of "unintended consequences", for example a lot of installations are in the basement which in the northeast are typically damp. A coal stove will keep that dampness at bay preventing the growth of organisms like mold which has been linked to asthma.
But again regulations should have a benefit, I want to know what the bottom line is. Industry estimates put the cost of this at 50 to 200 billion dollars, there's better ways to spend that kind of money if the benefits of mercury reduction are negligible.
Moving the goal post, are we? You claimed that we shouldn't be doing anything about it because others aren't. When I pointed out the fact that we are responsible for our own pollution, not that of others, you try to make the claim that the benefits of cleaning up the mess is negligible. Again, considering the toxicity of mercury pollution, and the number of industries and power plants that are emitting it (over 6,000 in this country), how do you figure that the benefits are negligible? What price are willing to place on your children's lives?
Quote:
This topic comes up a lot on my forum so there is lot of input from many people, it's not a small sample of just handful of people. I can only tell you what is the general consensus amongst those people that have actually used these products that are afflicted with this.
"Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do not make a science. WIthout corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten. Anecdotes are told by fallible human storytellers. Farmer Bob in Puckerbrush, Kansas, may be an honest, church-going, family man not obviously subject to delusions, but we need physical evidence of an alien spacecraft or alien bodies, not just a story about landings and abductions at 3:00 A.M. on a deserted country road. Likewise with many medical claims. Stories about how your Aunt Mary's cancer was cured by watching Marx brothers movies or taking liver extract from castrated chickens are meaningless. The cancer might have gone into remission on its own, which some cancers do; or it might have been misdiagnosed; or, or, or.... What we need are controlled experiments, not anecdotes. We need 100 subjects with cancer, all properly diagnosed and matched. Then we need 25 of the subjects to watch Marx brothers movies, 25 to watch Alfred Hitchcock movies, 25 to watch the news, and 25 to watch nothing. Then we need to deduct the average rate or remission for this type of cancer and then analyze the data for statistically significant differences between the groups. If there are statistically significant differences, we better get confirmation from other scientists who have conducted their own experiments separate from ours before we hold a press conference to announce the cure for cancer."
Quote:
It might simply be the case of "unintended consequences", for example a lot of installations are in the basement which in the northeast are typically damp. A coal stove will keep that dampness at bay preventing the growth of organisms like mold which has been linked to asthma.
Forced air natural gas heating also dries the air, and doesn't emit mercury, lead, arsenic, radionucleides, sulphur dioxide, soot, carcengenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and other pollutants that are emitted from the combustion of coal, nor does it's (natural gas) production and use result in millions of acres of destroyed land from mining. Are you truly proposing that we revert back to 'the good old days' when everyone had a coal-fired boiler in their basement? Have you ever seen the pictures of the city air from 'the good old days'?
Imagine this - take a pair of identical twins, put one in a clean environment take the other and isolate him/her in an environment with air similar to that of Xi'an. Then leave them there until well......
Trying to imagine the one in crappy air being better off is silly.
Yup the EPA science model may be flawed, but keep in mind all regulations come in to play thru negotiation. Unfortunately in order to get any protection of our land/water/air, it needs to be expressed as "dire" or the pollution will be ignored until it is nearly irreversible and beyond dire.
I think some of these so called discoveries are a bit well a bit overblown. I lived in a house with a coal fired central heat furnace when I was a kid. That was over 60-years ago.. As far as I know I never suffered any ill effects from it. I would say however that long term breathing coal dust as miner's do is not a good thing.
then you ought to have trouble believing Obama Environmental Protection Agency claims
I wasn't aware that Obama had his own Environmental Protection Agency that was distinct from the one Bush and his other predecessors had, which made pretty much the same claims.
Not at all, if you are to go to the very first post I've made in this thread I've made both these assertions in one sentence.:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
If we were to eliminate all mercury emission from US coal plants it's whopping 1% of the global pool, what's the point when weighted against the monetary costs or the ever increasing amounts of emissions from Asia which accounts for 50% of the global pool?
----------------
Quote:
"Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do not make a science. WIthout corroborative evidence from other sources,....."
Hence the reason I also provided the medical study.
You can view some of the threads here if you're interested:
Forced air natural gas heating also dries the air,
It's not nearly the same because a coal stove operates 24/7, it's a constant flow of heat.
Quote:
and doesn't emit mercury, lead, arsenic, radionucleides, sulphur dioxide, soot, carcengenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and other pollutants that are emitted from the combustion of coal,
I'm not going to look them all up but it most certainly contains mercury as does any fossil fuel. Having said that the amounts are low compared to coal.
Quote:
nor does it's (natural gas) production and use result in millions of acres of destroyed land from mining.
As I'm in an area where fracking is booming you may want to research some of the issues that are beginning to crop up like tainted well water. For me personally the jury is still out but there is certainly some things occurring that are of concern. Just because it's out of sight doesn't mean there isn't any issue with it. As far as the acreage used for mining goes they are required to put aside funds to reclaim the land. On top of that they also pay a mine tax on every ton of coal that is mined that is used to reclaim abandoned mines that may be more than a century old where there is no one to hold responsible. In that regards new mining activity is beneficial to the environment.
Quote:
Are you truly proposing that we revert back to 'the good old days' when everyone had a coal-fired boiler in their basement? Have you ever seen the pictures of the city air from 'the good old days'?
The primary type of coal used for coal heat is anthracite, nearly all the production for anthracite is used exclusively for home heating. Other uses include water filtering<gasp> because anthracite filters perform better and last longer than sand ones because of the odd fractures. It's the highest rank of coal with a price to match compared to soft coal. It's nearly pure carbon and burns with a nice blue flame. There is no soot or smoke and quite suitable for even the closest urban areas. Little bit of history, during the World Wars they used it in ships, stealth coal!
If you lived 10 feet from someone using anthracite you wouldn't know the difference from the other neighbor using NG. This was also the primary fuel used in a lot of eastern cities like NY, Philly in the eraly part of the last century. This is the reason you won't find images of a black haze sitting over the city like you would for places like London. It was also used as a Gimmick for the Lackawanna Railroad to attract customers.
As far as using coal on large scale for the Northeast it certainly makes sense for some because it's a fairly local product and there is very little energy expended to get that product to peoples doorsteps compared to something like oil which is still used a lot in this area. The farther you get away from the Northeastern Pennsylvanian area which is the only source of anthracite both the economic and environmental benefits become negligible.
Quote:
Phoebe Snow (character) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rail travel around the year 1900 was tough on passengers' clothes. After a long trip on a coal-powered train, travellers would frequently emerge covered in black soot. The exception to that rule was locomotives powered by anthracite, a clean-burning form of coal. The Lackawanna owned vast anthracite mines in Pennsylvania, and could legitimately claim that their passengers' clothes would still look clean after a long trip.
To promote this fact, Calkins advertising department created Phoebe Snow, a young New York socialite, and a frequent passenger of the Lackawanna.[1][2]:9 The ad campaign positioned Miss Snow as often traveling to Buffalo, New York, always wearing a white dress.
Last edited by thecoalman; 01-12-2012 at 06:47 PM..
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.
