Liberal War on Coal Industry is Now Hurting RR Workers.

[bripat9643]

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

Can you back up your assertions? I can, a study found the $131 billion in damages in the year 2011. My share would be about $500/year. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Air pollution caused by energy production in the U.S. caused at least $131 billion in damages in the year 2011 alone, a new analysis concludes — but while the number sounds grim, it’s also a sign of improvement. In 2002, the damages totaled as high as $175 billion, and the decline in the past decade highlights the success of more stringent emissions regulations on the energy sector while also pointing out the need to continue cracking down.
“The bulk of the cost of emissions is the result of health impacts — so morbidity and particularly mortality,” said the paper’s lead author, Paulina Jaramillo, an assistant professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.​

I would have to pay to read your study, so your link is absolutely useless for this debate.

My assertions are very easy to backup. Simply supply the name of a single person who was diagnosed with an illness caused by pollution. Even easier, produce evidence that the incidence illness in the vicinity of coal fired power plants is greater than elsewhere. No such evidence has ever been produced. Your "study" is based on the their that if 'X' concentration of a substance will cause 10,000 deaths in a given area, the X/1000 will cause 10 deaths. The empirical evidence shows that no such relationship exists. Take salt, for instance. Small concentrations are good for you. They are necessary for the body to function. Large concentrations, on the other hand, can kill you.

 

[alang1216]

My assertions are very easy to backup. Simply supply the name of a single person who was diagnosed with an illness caused by pollution. Even easier, produce evidence that the incidence illness in the vicinity of coal fired power plants is greater than elsewhere. No such evidence has ever been produced. Your "study" is based on the their that if 'X' concentration of a substance will cause 10,000 deaths in a given area, the X/1000 will cause 10 deaths. The empirical evidence shows that no such relationship exists. Take salt, for instance. Small concentrations are good for you. They are necessary for the body to function. Large concentrations, on the other hand, can kill you.

I understand that you don't like science but air pollution is a known asthma trigger and has been associated with short-term asthma symptoms, airway inflammation, decreased lung function, and reduced response to asthma rescue medications. See this link for a news summary.

You mention 'empirical evidence', can you provide a link to this evidence?

 

[bripat9643]

My assertions are very easy to backup. Simply supply the name of a single person who was diagnosed with an illness caused by pollution. Even easier, produce evidence that the incidence illness in the vicinity of coal fired power plants is greater than elsewhere. No such evidence has ever been produced. Your "study" is based on the their that if 'X' concentration of a substance will cause 10,000 deaths in a given area, the X/1000 will cause 10 deaths. The empirical evidence shows that no such relationship exists. Take salt, for instance. Small concentrations are good for you. They are necessary for the body to function. Large concentrations, on the other hand, can kill you.

I understand that you don't like science but air pollution is a known asthma trigger and has been associated with short-term asthma symptoms, airway inflammation, decreased lung function, and reduced response to asthma rescue medications. See this link for a news summary.

You mention 'empirical evidence', can you provide a link to this evidence?

First, the air pollution the "study" referred to comes almost entirely from automobiles, not coal fired power plants.

Note: from the abstract of your study:

Residential history and data from local ambient air monitoring stations were used to estimate average annual exposure to five air pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), sulfur dioxide, particulate matter not greater than 10 μm in diameter, and particulate matter not greater than 2.5 μm in diameter. Within each region, we performed logistic regression to determine the relationship between early-life exposure to air pollutants and subsequent asthma diagnosis. A random-effects model was used to combine the region-specific effects and generate summary odds ratios for each pollutant. After adjustment for confounders, a 5-ppb increase in average NO₂ during the first year of life was associated with an odds ratio of 1.17 for physician-diagnosed asthma (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31).Early-life NO₂ exposure is associated with childhood asthma in Latinos and African Americans.​

The highlighted text means this study does exactly what I described: It extrapolates from the effects of these toxins at high doses to the minute doses that subjects might encounter in an urban environment. Never do these so-called researchers ever document a single case of illness attributed to air pollution. These "studies" are scams.

Again, produce a single documented example of a doctor diagnosing a patient with suffering from air pollution from a coal fired power plant. You can't even produce evidence that people living near coal fired power plants have a higher incidence of illness than people living elsewhere. You can't because their incidence of illness is exactly the same.

Also, form your article:

Even though factors other than pollution may also increase the risk of developing asthma — like obesity, stress, and a family history — the team’s results raise questions about whether the national standards for nitrogen dioxide are strong enough.​

If there's one thing we know about kids in poverty, it's that they are fat. They also experience high levels of stress and come from broken families. But these "researchers" blithely concluded that those factors were irrelevant!

BTW, why don't you turds paste a link to a study I can actually read without having to pay for it?

 

[HenryBHough]

Once you understand that Obama and friends want American workers dependent on federal handouts, neutered and faithful, all of this will make sense. People with jobs and income are not ready to give that up for a dole so jobs MUST be eliminated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Natural gas prices are killing coal. It's that 'free market' you conservatives pretend to revere when it suits you.

 

[Rustic]

As coal cools off, railroads close tracks and cut jobs across the country
Just as lousy trade agreements such as Pacific Trade and NAFTA have ripple effect on workers in other industries so does the liberal war on coal being championed by Billary. If your a working class American the Democratic Party has dumped you over the side of the PC boat. Hillary and Democrats are concerned about two guys being able to marry and make out in public than providing well paying blue collar jobs. Guess most of the coal miners in West Virginia are white males so in the eyes of urban and suburban Dem's they are the enemy.

Those Libs are doing a really bad job of waging war. Coal production in the US is about the same as it ever was. The number of workers has declined but mostly as a result of the switch from subsurface to surface mining. If you actually read your link you'd have learned the real reasons for the layoffs: Warm weather, low prices hit energy rail traffic in 2016. Or you thinks the Libs are now controlling the weather?

Then again....no

ohhhh, I LOVE GRAPHS

Me too when they deal with the thread topic....dope

Now what do you think is replacing coal for many areas? Cheaper, cleaner, and far less polluting. In the meantime, the price of electricity produced by wind and solar is continuing to come down, wind is already less than coal, and solar at the utility level is at parity with coal. As Tesla, Levo, and Eos bring their gridscale batteries online, you are going to see the coal plants steadily shut down and replaced by gas, wind, and solar. Strictly for economic reasons.

You're a fool...

 

[Bush92]

How Obama went from coal’s top cheerleader to its No. 1 enemy
I can post up evidence of Democratic Party war on coal miners for days and days. Democrats have sold out the working man. They love Hillary and her Wall Street financial backers.

 

[bripat9643]

Natural gas prices are killing coal. It's that 'free market' you conservatives pretend to revere when it suits you.

Obama and the EPA killed coal. Blaming it on natural gas is a Dim diversion. Companies don't shut down perfectly serviceable multi billion dollar coal fired power plants because natural gas is slightly cheaper. They do it because new EPA regulations would force them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading them to the new more stringent standards. A lot of these power plants are only 15 years old.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Natural gas prices are killing coal. It's that 'free market' you conservatives pretend to revere when it suits you.

Obama and the EPA killed coal. Blaming it on natural gas is a Dim diversion. Companies don't shut down perfectly serviceable multi billion dollar coal fired power plants because natural gas is slightly cheaper. They do it because new EPA regulations would force them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading them to the new more stringent standards. A lot of these power plants are only 15 years old.

Companies don't use cheaper fuels when they can?

lol, you get more retarded every day.

 

[bripat9643]

Natural gas prices are killing coal. It's that 'free market' you conservatives pretend to revere when it suits you.

Obama and the EPA killed coal. Blaming it on natural gas is a Dim diversion. Companies don't shut down perfectly serviceable multi billion dollar coal fired power plants because natural gas is slightly cheaper. They do it because new EPA regulations would force them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading them to the new more stringent standards. A lot of these power plants are only 15 years old.

Companies don't use cheaper fuels when they can?

lol, you get more retarded every day.

You're a retard who doesn't understand the first thing about economics.

You don't throw away a multi-billion dollar investment because some other fuel suddenly became slightly cheaper. Even if the cost of natural gas was zero, it still costs more than a billion dollars to build a new gas fired power power plant. It takes a couple of decades to defray the cost of the new plant even with fuel that is free.

 

[alang1216]

[
this study does exactly what I described: It extrapolates from the effects of these toxins at high doses to the minute doses that subjects might encounter in an urban environment. Never do these so-called researchers ever document a single case of illness attributed to air pollution. These "studies" are scams.

There are a number of known carcinogens emitted by coal power plants. Can you show what the safe level of these carcinogens would be? If you can't you're just hoping there isn't a problem since by the time we know it will be too late for many.

Still waiting for your 'empirical evidence' link.

BTW, why don't you turds paste a link to a study I can actually read without having to pay for it?

You should have been able view my links??

 

[bripat9643]

[
this study does exactly what I described: It extrapolates from the effects of these toxins at high doses to the minute doses that subjects might encounter in an urban environment. Never do these so-called researchers ever document a single case of illness attributed to air pollution. These "studies" are scams.

There are a number of known carcinogens emitted by coal power plants. Can you show what the safe level of these carcinogens would be? If you can't you're just hoping there isn't a problem since by the time we know it will be too late for many.

Still waiting for your 'empirical evidence' link.

BTW, why don't you turds paste a link to a study I can actually read without having to pay for it?

You should have been able view my links??

The mid-day sun is a carcinogen. The fact that cancer rates near coal fired power plants are indistinguishable from cancer rates in other areas demonstrates that coal fired power plants do not cause cancer.

By the way, a portion of natural gas is composed of carbon-14, which is radioactive. It's a carcinogen, in other words.

Your link went to an abstract that you can't read unless you pay.

 

[alang1216]

[
You should have been able view my links??

The mid-day sun is a carcinogen. The fact that cancer rates near coal fired power plants are indistinguishable from cancer rates in other areas demonstrates that coal fired power plants do not cause cancer.[/QUOTE]
In 2007 the Associated Press reported a confirmed cancer cluster in Delaware,

Delaware health officials have confirmed what residents near a coal-fired power plant long suspected: there is a cluster of cancer cases near the Indian River Power Plant. The News Journal reported Sunday that the rate of cancer cases in the area is 7 percent higher than the national average...The state study was released last month to Lt. Gov. John Carney, who requested the report.."[6] ( link )

 

[bripat9643]

You should have been able view my links??

The mid-day sun is a carcinogen. The fact that cancer rates near coal fired power plants are indistinguishable from cancer rates in other areas demonstrates that coal fired power plants do not cause cancer.

In 2007 the Associated Press reported a confirmed cancer cluster in Delaware,

Delaware health officials have confirmed what residents near a coal-fired power plant long suspected: there is a cluster of cancer cases near the Indian River Power Plant. The News Journal reported Sunday that the rate of cancer cases in the area is 7 percent higher than the national average...The state study was released last month to Lt. Gov. John Carney, who requested the report.."[6] ( link )

ROFL! So one coal fired power plant has a 7% greater number of cancer cases than the surrounding area? You realize, of course, that there are such clusters all over the country, and the medical community has no idea what has caused most of them. You might have something credible if you found such a cluster around every coal fired power plant.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Switching to renewable energy sources makes total economic sense. Does it not?

 

[bripat9643]

Switching to renewable energy sources makes total economic sense. Does it not?

Exactly the opposite is the case. Renewables are economic folly. If they made sense, the government wouldn't have to subsidize them and compel their use.

 

[Lakhota]

As coal cools off, railroads close tracks and cut jobs across the country
Just as lousy trade agreements such as Pacific Trade and NAFTA have ripple effect on workers in other industries so does the liberal war on coal being championed by Billary. If your a working class American the Democratic Party has dumped you over the side of the PC boat. Hillary and Democrats are concerned about two guys being able to marry and make out in public than providing well paying blue collar jobs. Guess most of the coal miners in West Virginia are white males so in the eyes of urban and suburban Dem's they are the enemy.

All you coal lovers should be donating money to funds that help miners with black lung and their families. It's the Godly Christian thing to do.

 

[Lakhota]

Switching to renewable energy sources makes total economic sense. Does it not?

Exactly the opposite is the case. Renewables are economic folly. If they made sense, the government wouldn't have to subsidize them and compel their use.

Government often subsidizes startup technology. Google it...

 

[bripat9643]

Switching to renewable energy sources makes total economic sense. Does it not?

Exactly the opposite is the case. Renewables are economic folly. If they made sense, the government wouldn't have to subsidize them and compel their use.

Government often subsidizes startup technology. Google it...

I'll do that when you write a check to pay for someone else's cancer treatments.

 

[alang1216]

ROFL! So one coal fired power plant has a 7% greater number of cancer cases than the surrounding area? You realize, of course, that there are such clusters all over the country, and the medical community has no idea what has caused most of them. You might have something credible if you found such a cluster around every coal fired power plant.

I have to apologize for being a bit slow and wasting your time.

Although I provided a number of studies, there is absolutely no evidence you would accept that contradicted your OP. You dismiss population studies as merely statistics and when I provide actual cases as you requested you dismiss them because there is no statistical evidence.