Saying No to Coal Is Saying Yes To Human Wellness and Longevity
It is well established that 13,000+ Americans die annually and hundreds of thousands become ill due to the heavy metals and radioactive isotopes associated with coal-fired power plants. Given that, it’s not clear why a study was required to conclude that coal plant closures save thousands of lives. In any case, here you have it.
Craig,
No, it’s not true, nor “well established” that 13,000+ Americans die annually and hundreds of thousands become ill due to the heavy metals and radioactive isotopes associated with coal-fired power plant !
It’s a complete fiction, and always was.
The study conducted was so biased, inaccurate and vague it lacks even the most basic elements of scientific discipline.
The study includes anecdotal, unverified and untraceable information, as is it were verified fact. Very old and vague estimates based on the unsupported opinions of anonymous or unqualified sources “estimate” how much longer a person may have lived (sometimes by mere hours!) had the subject’s ts illness not been complicated by bronchial conditions attributed to living near a coal fired power zone.
One of the samples quoted in the study the researchers didn’t bother to inquire if subjects smoked! In another, the subject were understandably old and the statistics gathered in the late 1979-80.
Many subjects had been involved in occupations that could easily provide alternative explanations.
For instance a number of subject worked on Steam fired locomotives, coal fired boiler installations, etc.
At least two of the named subjects had been employed as charcoal burners for most of their lives!
None of these factors were considered relevant by the researchers.
Ranting on about closing down old, obsolete coal fired power stations, is about as relevant as boasting you have reduced the harmful effects of gasoline pollution by ensuring no more Model T Fords from the American highways!
In your irrational hatred for coal you have developed an antipathy for all, but a narrow selection, of New Clean Technology.
The objective of new environmental technology should be to negate or eliminate noxious or pollutant emissions, not conduct a puritanical crusade against prosperity and whole industries.
Many times I have offered to you the opportunity to debate the merits of new ‘clean(er) coal technology against the disadvantages of Solar or Wind, but each time you refuse.
Why? Because you know the truth! In a fair minded contest, you lack credibility.
But why? Several years ago, we both set out on mission to mitigate or eliminate environmental harm by harnessing the opportunities offered by emerging clean technology.
Since then, especially after 2016, you seem to have chosen to reject any new technology that doesn’t conform to your weird new pseudo-religion.
You have appointed yourself High Priest and embarked on a crusade against any new technology that doesn’t fit with your moral/ideological/political beliefs.
Very sad ! Once you were an inquiring mind, eager to pursue the joy of any new technology, engage in debate, and possessed a flexible attitude.
Since 2016, you have grown intolerant of all but those whom you consider “True believer”.
Gone are the long and thoughtful comments, replaced by twitter, and facebook.
I beg of you, leave the cracker barrel, come back, and join the rest of us who are still on our original quest?