I really don’t care what you think. My original comment was meant sarcastically, and Ender’s post is a good example why I react to these kinds of numbers
" UP TO 1400"
How is that any different than the claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy. One can claim those are all WAGS, all fake, A POS in other words.
This can be amusing. Springfield Mo has a “state of the art” coal-burning electrical utility system. If you look at the stacks, there is nothing visibly coming from them but steam. Downwind, there’s nothing you can see at all, except in the winter you can sometimes see little glittering ice crystals if the sun is right . Even Claire McCaskill, in one of her occasional fruitless forays into the intensely Repub Seventh District, (where Springfield is) praised it.
And this is going to cause deaths?
Of course it is nonsense, just like the 1400 number is nonsense
One would have to know preexisting health issues of individuals to make such a claim.
The number is a political construct
No. Let’s not pretend that the study is necessarily valid.
“UP TO 1400”
Up to can also be one.
This is certainly true of reliable estimates, but given that this estimate is anything but reliable this whole flap is meaningless. I posted the EPA chart. Is it really necessary to point out that 1400 was an upper range on two (of 12) estimates using one particular set of assumptions, and one would be equally justified in saying the number is actually 70 since that number exceeds the lower range in three of the estimates. Given that the high number chosen is 20 times larger than an equally valid low guesstimate why should anyone believe the higher number is more valid?
The better question is why people still get caught up in this kind of hype. Can we ever expect sanity to return?
The visible appearance of exhaust products is not a certain indicator of the dangers of those exhaust products. Consider the fact that drinking water with unhealthy levels of lead compounds can look perfectly clear. This is yet another example where technical analysis is eschewed in favor of general impressions. Imagine how you would feel if I as a city guy made some claims about what appeared to me to be the best way to raise cattle, and dismissed your technical expertise in ranching in favor of my “common sense.”
all the time china was increasing coal burning plants around the world.
even germany is going non-green
I don’t think there will ever be a time when statistically100% of illnesses or death can be eliminated from any fuel or energy source. The coal industry has made great strides over the years. Most new plants and those older ones that have been updated have made dramatic improvements and decrease in harmful emissions. Some individuals will never be happy until all coal fired power plants are eliminated. Then they will also be upset with the astronomical costs of other energy sources. With the same logic we should also eliminate immediately all gasoline and diesel power vehicles. People also die from being electrocuted, so technically electricity itself should be eliminated. All mold from moisture can never be eliminated from building materials, what do we do about that. We definitely need to work with and encourage industry to make improvements, but we have to be practical and do so in both an environmentally sound as well as economical manner. Coal is one of our cheapest energy sources and without it many individuals couldn’t afford to heat their homes. This could impact low income individuals greatly with the increased cost of alternative energy sources. Let’s work for improvement but let’s be reasonable, as well.
Lol. I cant name anyone who will be killed by poisonous snakes next year, therefore snakes wont kill anyone next year.
If you want electricity, how are you going to get it?
The headline of the report … turns out to be false … if you read the actual report.
Right now, we use coal for about half maybe declining to 30%, natural gas for a quarter, and nuclear for a quarter. Hydro is a tiny amount … less than ten percent because all the good sites are already used.
Coal use is dropping because the generators are old and being replaced by natural gas burners. And because the public relations issues are terrible. But we have been using coal for a hundred years … more than a hundred years … since 1882.
People understand coal; we have a lot of it, we mine it, we burn it to boil water and use the steam to run a steam turbine. There are different kinds of coal, we ship it all over the world, and we know how to clean up the pollution with bag houses and electrostatic precipitators … knowledge that has been around for many decades.
We have found more and more natural gas, which we use to run through a gas turbine engine, either a converted airliner engine or a specially made giant gas turbine.
Boutique power which is solar and wind generates a tiny amount and doesn’t work when the wind is still or too fast. Solar doesn’t work at night. It only is good for about 1%. And it has major problems satisfying demand, when people WANT or NEED power, not when nature decides to provide power. A lot of solar is being installed, but it costs SIX times more than coal/natural gas/nuke. SIX TIMES. Not six percent more, more like six hundred percent more. Where I live, they just demolished a wind turbine; no idea why. In some locations, wind turbines make a lot of very disturbing noise and kill a lot of bats and birds.
So, what are you prepared to use to generate electricity?
I have friends who state they reject natural gas owing to fracking. But they still use natural gas for heating and cooking. They don’t know WHY they oppose fracking; but they oppose it.
So what are you going to use for energy?
The cleanest and cheapest and available 24/7 is nuclear, but you need a masters degree in mechanical engineering and/or chemistry to understand it.
If the issues involved are of interest, consider reading this book:
You can get it on-line pretty much for free … Kindle for 99 cents … , if you don’t want a paper copy.
Read this also: http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com
It’s free, but if you like it, mail the author a check/donation.
lol. Not what I said. But let me ask you; can you state categorically how many people will die from snake bites? Are deaths by venomous snake bites dependent on a particular health impairment of the victim? Which human action is responsible for the death by snake bite? Do we need snake regulation?
Millions of people will die next year from all kinds of causes. The claim that 1400 people will die because of changes is coal regulations is a misrepresentation of the study itself for political purposes. Hence the question, who are they? In other words, a ludicrous claim deserves the ridicule of a ludicrous question.
And if you make up numbers saying up to 37651 people will die from snakes next year, people will want to know how you got the number.
You cause people to think your entire message is made up if you are caught making up numbers to scare people.
I have lost track how many times people have complained about lifesitenews.com on here for doing the same thing in their opinion.
Jon asked to see backing of their estimates for 1400 people, and of course a few posters get indignant and call him out for not thinking a single person will die, which is a point no one has made.
Actually, that was not what he initially said. He initially asked who would die and asked for names. It is perfectly reasonable to ask how someone comes at a particular number. I have no idea whether the EPA number is derived adequately or not, but it certainly could be a worthwhile discussion.
I will say that both sides will use junk science when it suits them. That is a sad reality of our political system, few people are interested in objective truth.
I agree, and it is appropriate to mock whoever does it…like this claim that 1400 additional deaths a year will occur because of the new coal regulations.
And that is fair. But when questioned for proof, your rebuttal (general you, not your specifically) shouldn’t be “so you’re saying no one will die???” That’s childish.