Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[uscitizen]

Strange how power plants get that way when not properly maintained and upgraded. Cost too much?
Well pay now or pay later from the consumers standpoint. The power companys took the pay later road for us.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Actually, Big Fitz has presented a pretty convincing case but then, he's not an azz. Does that mean he and I have to agree on everything to engage in civil discourse? Of course not. Some day when you grow up, you'll learn about this thing called "class". It's really cool!

No no... trust me. I'm an ass at times. Doesn't make me any less right... except when I disagree with you. Right?

EXACTLY!!!

I can see THAT being a sig line for someone soon.

Okay except that you have both acknowledged that there is a legitimate claim of increased danger from the plants - albeit in your opinion infinitesimal in comparison to the cost of reduction.
And you don't every sentence directed toward anyone disagreeing with you, with the word "idiot" or "nutburger" or whatever.
So that makes up for when you're wrong for having disagreed with me.

 

[bripat9643]

And then you finally post something I can look at. At least your articles are better than the bullshit starshit posted.

From the first article:

The new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year, according to the EPA. The standards will also prevent 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

How do we know this? What is the proof that these predictions
will be so? I suspect vastly inflated numbers. But since I can't find their source material, how am I supposed to accept it? Seems like industry ain't too thrilled at the cost, but that's a given. The question is, is the cost worth the supposed result? Oh and don't hand me the 'what's the cost of a single human life' bullshit either. We're dealing in data, not emotional hyperbole.

One thing I AM noticing going over the EPA charts is that the reductions demanded are really very costly for small decreases. I stand by my questioning the real need for doing it and the declared benefit.

Charts and Tables | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA

When you look at the global mercury emissions chart... Needless to say, I'm shocked to see how LITTLE we produce in the world.

The second article on autism, much better, but it still leaves me begging the question why we are concerned in such a low concentration of mercury than compared what we would be exposed to locally from a broken CFL, thermometer or vaccine? Out of the bunch CFL's are fine? Then shouldn't all of them be fine? I mean they can't even prove the link right now between mercury in vaccines and autism, but they're trying like hell to do it. Advocacy science is like that.

The last article... I got a jaw drop. one chart pointed out how many pounds of mercury there are in 1 billion BTUs worth of coal. Ready?

0.007 lbs.

That's it.

the same amount produced 35 pounds of chlorine! Yeah, I dunno. I'm getting less and less encouraged on the science and data surrounding the importance of this need to cut mercury as we go.

Your sources are better researched and sourced, but really, they still hit the same brick wall in my mind: cost effectiveness studies. I need better proof that these 'improvements' are worth the damage it will do to life in this nation.

Here's some credible information about mercury:

Mercury Scare Rising | Fox News

The average level of mercury in hair associated with seafood consumption in the U.S. is 0.12 ppm, according to a 1997 study. This level of mercury exposure is not associated with harm to children's nervous systems.

A July 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences noted that a 66-month study of 711 children in the Seychelles Islands assessed the effects of prenatal mercury in tests of global intelligence and developmental milestones. No adverse effects were attributable to mercury. Maternal hair samples collected at birth contained mercury concentrations that ranged from 0.5 to 27 ppm.

A smaller study of Faroe Islands children reported only "subtle" (invisible?) effects at corresponding exposure levels.

The NAS concluded "the functional importance of the apparent effects is uncertain," and the studies "provide little evidence" that children are affected appreciably by low-dose prenatal exposure to mercury.

This body of evidence linking low-level mercury exposure with harm to children is so weak that U.S. regulations are based on extrapolation from the Iraqi poisoning data. The EPA's current "safe" level of mercury exposure is based on a maternal hair level of about 11 ppm -- way above U.S. exposures to mercury from fish consumption.

In short, the EPA has no hard evidence that any child has ever been harmed by smoke from a coal fired power plant.

You'll find another useful article about the EPA's estimates here:

EPA's New Mercury Rule? Environmental Hocus Pocus

 

[daveman]

Strange how power plants get that way when not properly maintained and upgraded. Cost too much?
Well pay now or pay later from the consumers standpoint. The power companys took the pay later road for us.

Who says they're not properly maintained?

 

[bripat9643]

Okay except that you have both acknowledged that there is a legitimate claim of increased danger from the plants - albeit in your opinion infinitesimal in comparison to the cost of reduction.
And you don't every sentence directed toward anyone disagreeing with you, with the word "idiot" or "nutburger" or whatever.
So that makes up for when you're wrong for having disagreed with me.

There is no danger whatsoever from coal fired power plants.

 

[daveman]

And then you finally post something I can look at. At least your articles are better than the bullshit starshit posted.

From the first article:

The new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year, according to the EPA. The standards will also prevent 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

How do we know this? What is the proof that these predictions
will be so? I suspect vastly inflated numbers. But since I can't find their source material, how am I supposed to accept it? Seems like industry ain't too thrilled at the cost, but that's a given. The question is, is the cost worth the supposed result? Oh and don't hand me the 'what's the cost of a single human life' bullshit either. We're dealing in data, not emotional hyperbole.

One thing I AM noticing going over the EPA charts is that the reductions demanded are really very costly for small decreases. I stand by my questioning the real need for doing it and the declared benefit.

Charts and Tables | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA

When you look at the global mercury emissions chart... Needless to say, I'm shocked to see how LITTLE we produce in the world.

The second article on autism, much better, but it still leaves me begging the question why we are concerned in such a low concentration of mercury than compared what we would be exposed to locally from a broken CFL, thermometer or vaccine? Out of the bunch CFL's are fine? Then shouldn't all of them be fine? I mean they can't even prove the link right now between mercury in vaccines and autism, but they're trying like hell to do it. Advocacy science is like that.

The last article... I got a jaw drop. one chart pointed out how many pounds of mercury there are in 1 billion BTUs worth of coal. Ready?

0.007 lbs.

That's it.

the same amount produced 35 pounds of chlorine! Yeah, I dunno. I'm getting less and less encouraged on the science and data surrounding the importance of this need to cut mercury as we go.

Your sources are better researched and sourced, but really, they still hit the same brick wall in my mind: cost effectiveness studies. I need better proof that these 'improvements' are worth the damage it will do to life in this nation.

Here's some credible information about mercury:

Mercury Scare Rising | Fox News

The average level of mercury in hair associated with seafood consumption in the U.S. is 0.12 ppm, according to a 1997 study. This level of mercury exposure is not associated with harm to children's nervous systems.

A July 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences noted that a 66-month study of 711 children in the Seychelles Islands assessed the effects of prenatal mercury in tests of global intelligence and developmental milestones. No adverse effects were attributable to mercury. Maternal hair samples collected at birth contained mercury concentrations that ranged from 0.5 to 27 ppm.

A smaller study of Faroe Islands children reported only "subtle" (invisible?) effects at corresponding exposure levels.

The NAS concluded "the functional importance of the apparent effects is uncertain," and the studies "provide little evidence" that children are affected appreciably by low-dose prenatal exposure to mercury.

This body of evidence linking low-level mercury exposure with harm to children is so weak that U.S. regulations are based on extrapolation from the Iraqi poisoning data. The EPA's current "safe" level of mercury exposure is based on a maternal hair level of about 11 ppm -- way above U.S. exposures to mercury from fish consumption.

In short, the EPA has no hard evidence that any child has ever been harmed by smoke from a coal fired power plant.

You'll find another useful article about the EPA's estimates here:

EPA's New Mercury Rule? Environmental Hocus Pocus

Pffft. Everybody knows that mercury from American coal is far more potent. Just like CO2 from American SUVs is far more powerful than foreign CO2.

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually, Big Fitz has presented a pretty convincing case but then, he's not an azz. Does that mean he and I have to agree on everything to engage in civil discourse? Of course not. Some day when you grow up, you'll learn about this thing called "class". It's really cool!

No no... trust me. I'm an ass at times. Doesn't make me any less right... except when I disagree with you. Right?

EXACTLY!!!

I can see THAT being a sig line for someone soon.

Okay except that you have both acknowledged that there is a legitimate claim of increased danger from the plants - albeit in your opinion infinitesimal in comparison to the cost of reduction.
And you don't every sentence directed toward anyone disagreeing with you, with the word "idiot" or "nutburger" or whatever.
So that makes up for when you're wrong for having disagreed with me.

 

[IndependntLogic]

And then you finally post something I can look at. At least your articles are better than the bullshit starshit posted.

From the first article:

The new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year, according to the EPA. The standards will also prevent 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

How do we know this? What is the proof that these predictions
will be so? I suspect vastly inflated numbers. But since I can't find their source material, how am I supposed to accept it? Seems like industry ain't too thrilled at the cost, but that's a given. The question is, is the cost worth the supposed result? Oh and don't hand me the 'what's the cost of a single human life' bullshit either. We're dealing in data, not emotional hyperbole.

One thing I AM noticing going over the EPA charts is that the reductions demanded are really very costly for small decreases. I stand by my questioning the real need for doing it and the declared benefit.

Charts and Tables | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA

When you look at the global mercury emissions chart... Needless to say, I'm shocked to see how LITTLE we produce in the world.

The second article on autism, much better, but it still leaves me begging the question why we are concerned in such a low concentration of mercury than compared what we would be exposed to locally from a broken CFL, thermometer or vaccine? Out of the bunch CFL's are fine? Then shouldn't all of them be fine? I mean they can't even prove the link right now between mercury in vaccines and autism, but they're trying like hell to do it. Advocacy science is like that.

The last article... I got a jaw drop. one chart pointed out how many pounds of mercury there are in 1 billion BTUs worth of coal. Ready?

0.007 lbs.

That's it.

the same amount produced 35 pounds of chlorine! Yeah, I dunno. I'm getting less and less encouraged on the science and data surrounding the importance of this need to cut mercury as we go.

Your sources are better researched and sourced, but really, they still hit the same brick wall in my mind: cost effectiveness studies. I need better proof that these 'improvements' are worth the damage it will do to life in this nation.

Here's some credible information about mercury:

Mercury Scare Rising | Fox News

The average level of mercury in hair associated with seafood consumption in the U.S. is 0.12 ppm, according to a 1997 study. This level of mercury exposure is not associated with harm to children's nervous systems.

A July 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences noted that a 66-month study of 711 children in the Seychelles Islands assessed the effects of prenatal mercury in tests of global intelligence and developmental milestones. No adverse effects were attributable to mercury. Maternal hair samples collected at birth contained mercury concentrations that ranged from 0.5 to 27 ppm.

A smaller study of Faroe Islands children reported only "subtle" (invisible?) effects at corresponding exposure levels.

The NAS concluded "the functional importance of the apparent effects is uncertain," and the studies "provide little evidence" that children are affected appreciably by low-dose prenatal exposure to mercury.

This body of evidence linking low-level mercury exposure with harm to children is so weak that U.S. regulations are based on extrapolation from the Iraqi poisoning data. The EPA's current "safe" level of mercury exposure is based on a maternal hair level of about 11 ppm -- way above U.S. exposures to mercury from fish consumption.

In short, the EPA has no hard evidence that any child has ever been harmed by smoke from a coal fired power plant.

You'll find another useful article about the EPA's estimates here:

EPA's New Mercury Rule? Environmental Hocus Pocus

Okay this is a really informative post and kudos for having gotten through without insulting a single person!
Very interesting indeed. I have to acknowledge this as one of your best.
BTW, I do watch FOX and although it leans Right, consider it as valid a news source as CNN or MSNBC or whatever.
So the study done by the folks at the W. VA institute of health didn't specify mercury specifically but it did make clear that people living close to these plants get seriously bad juju.
Coincidence? Seems unlikely.
What say you?

 

[bripat9643]

Okay this is a really informative post and kudos for having gotten through without insulting a single person!
Very interesting indeed. I have to acknowledge this as one of your best.
So the study done by the folks at the W. VA institute of health didn't specify mercury specifically but it did make clear that people living close to these plants get seriously bad juju.
Coincidence? Seems unlikely.
What say you?

What study done by the folks at the W. VA institute of health?

 

[Big Fitz]

now the real question. After having failed in a two prong counter attack of link dumping, attempting asymetrical rhetorical warfare whining (You won't accept my stuff as fact out of hand) and then suffering a complete vivisection of their articles as being created through dubious methods, circular logic and incestuous groups with little real science...

What's the over and other we'll be called stupid and/or fascist nazi racist homophobes who want to kill all women and children with coal smoke?

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay this is a really informative post and kudos for having gotten through without insulting a single person!

Heeeeeeeeeeee's a slacker.

 

[IndependntLogic]

now the real question. After having failed in a two prong counter attack of link dumping, attempting asymetrical rhetorical warfare whining (You won't accept my stuff as fact out of hand) and then suffering a complete vivisection of their articles as being created through dubious methods, circular logic and incestuous groups with little real science...

What's the over and other we'll be called stupid and/or fascist nazi racist homophobes who want to kill all women and children with coal smoke?

You are SUCH a fasconazracimysogitoxicator!

@ Bripat, I posted the study twice now. Just scroll up.

 

[bripat9643]

@ Bripat, I posted the study twice now. Just scroll up.

Your study refers to coal mines, not coal fired power plants.

 

[DaGoose]

Here's some reading for you but I can already tell that you'll simply say, "Those links don't prove a thing"!!

First Mercury, Air Toxics Standards Imposed on U.S. Power Plants

This article only refers to EPA claims, which are dubious, to say the least. The EPA pays a private firm tens of millions of dollars to produce the statistics that support its regulatory overreaches. Needless to say, these organizations are hardly disinterested in the result.

Science-Based Medicine » Mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants and autism: Is there a correlation?

Your article criticizes the study. It's not using the study to support a link between autism an coal fired power plants.

http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf

The EPA has given $20 million to the American Lung Association. Their "research" on this issue is hardly credible.

Listen....do you think I like the idea that my place of employment causes pollution that can make people sick? I would love to be able to say that all of the experts and scientists are "full of shit liberals" that are lying like you and Big Fitz seem to think. But I can't. I see what we put out, I read the instrumentation and can say that facts are facts.

The best thing I can do is help to make it as clean burning as possible.

Few actual "scientists" have produce any evidence to support the EPA's claim. It doesn't matter to me how you feel about it.

Well, you did not disappoint. You did EXACTLY what I said you'd do. You're so damn predictable.

 

[DaGoose]

Okay except that you have both acknowledged that there is a legitimate claim of increased danger from the plants - albeit in your opinion infinitesimal in comparison to the cost of reduction.
And you don't every sentence directed toward anyone disagreeing with you, with the word "idiot" or "nutburger" or whatever.
So that makes up for when you're wrong for having disagreed with me.

There is no danger whatsoever from coal fired power plants.

Bullshit. Yes there is and I know from training and experience.

There are new EPA regs that will reduce the level of dangerous waste by-products from burning coal. These new regs will help reduce the environmental damage they cause.

And all of the whining and crying from you and Big Fitz won't stop that. So go drop a quarter in the nearest payphone and call someone who gives a shit about what you believe in contrast to what scientists say.

Cause I sure don't. Fucking crybabies.

 

[Big Fitz]

I took a break and just watched the Dead Parrot Sketch. Anyone else feel like they're talking to the shop keeper in the form of CookedGewse?

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay except that you have both acknowledged that there is a legitimate claim of increased danger from the plants - albeit in your opinion infinitesimal in comparison to the cost of reduction.
And you don't every sentence directed toward anyone disagreeing with you, with the word "idiot" or "nutburger" or whatever.
So that makes up for when you're wrong for having disagreed with me.

There is no danger whatsoever from coal fired power plants.

Bullshit. Yes there is and I know from training and experience.

There are new EPA regs that will reduce the level of dangerous waste by-products from burning coal. These new regs will help reduce the environmental damage they cause.

And all of the whining and crying from you and Big Fitz won't stop that. So go drop a quarter in the nearest payphone and call someone who gives a shit about what you believe in contrast to what scientists say.

Cause I sure don't. Fucking crybabies.

Whining?

You're crying "YOUUUU WON'T ACCEPT MY SCIENCE!!!!" and have the gall to say we're whining?

If your science wasn't just jumbled shit like this, maybe you'd get better results.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmmykiJSME]Paprika Scene - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IndependntLogic]

@ Bripat, I posted the study twice now. Just scroll up.

Your study refers to coal mines, not coal fired power plants.

Ah. Okay. I stand corrected.

 

[DaGoose]

There is no danger whatsoever from coal fired power plants.

Bullshit. Yes there is and I know from training and experience.

There are new EPA regs that will reduce the level of dangerous waste by-products from burning coal. These new regs will help reduce the environmental damage they cause.

And all of the whining and crying from you and Big Fitz won't stop that. So go drop a quarter in the nearest payphone and call someone who gives a shit about what you believe in contrast to what scientists say.

Cause I sure don't. Fucking crybabies.

Whining?

You're crying "YOUUUU WON'T ACCEPT MY SCIENCE!!!!" and have the gall to say we're whining?

If your science wasn't just jumbled shit like this, maybe you'd get better results.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmmykiJSME]Paprika Scene - YouTube[/ame]

Keep on whining. That's all this whole thread is about. You're not going to stop the regs no matter how much crying you do.

 

[starcraftzzz]

There is no danger whatsoever from coal fired power plants.

Incorrect coal plants kill 30,000 Americans yearly
STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Also every new EPA regulation under Obama saves more money then it costs. Some even have a 20-1 benefit cost ratio
The combined effect of the Obama EPA rules | Economic Policy Institute
So i ask you to stop lying