Posted on 08/14/2007 11:26:41 PM PDT by gpapa
Hey Tinfoil,
Okay pal, if you feel that between 500,000 and 2,500,000 Americans have died directly from coal fired plants since about WWII that is your choice.
Still, the problem is that at FR it is your responsibility to defend your thesis, not mine.
Thanks for the ping.
Best wishes for your flowers.
Just back from watering them. I have lots of them, and a vegetable garden. I put a lot of time, money and effort into them, and things are so dry here, if I don’t water them they are history.
Also have a little four-point (just got his first two points off his main beam) buck hanging around wanting to be fed. My deer are spoiled. I can’t wait to see this buck (if he makes it past hunting season)when he is two years old (grin). I just like watching him, learning a lot about his behavior and the antler growth rate.
I hope my halfway taming him doesn’t lead to his early demise, but I suspect he’ll get wary and not be around long except for at night. He has a huge harem (we are overrun with does) so he’ll spread the genes around (LOL).
This is only a one of many wacko groups that will follow the liberal progressives into office if we allow it! BEWARE, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!
The number of deaths due to coal-fired power are well documented, but people like you choose not to believe it until they hear it from Dan Rather. Ignorance like that is why democracy is could be in trouble soon.
Okay Tinfoil, got any more conspiracy theories?
“Okay Tinfoil, got any more conspiracy theories?”
Golly, calling me “tinfoil” is so incredibly witty! I guess you win the argument! How long did it take you to pull that one out of your rear end, Jacquerass?
Apparently you choose to remain ignorant of the basic facts that were established decades ago with regard to coal-fired power. So be it. I can only hope that the people as ignorant as you are in the minority.
Ignorance is excusable, but willful ignorance like yours is truly pathetic, Jacquerass.
BTW, do you think Karl Rove or the President himself brought down the World Trade Center Towers?
I think you’re a Jacquerass.
You seem to think that deaths due to pollution from coal-fired power is a controversial topic. Only in your ignorant little mind — and only because you didn’t hear it from Dan Rather and the mainstream media. Try googling “coal-fired power deaths” and see what you find, Jacquerass.
You know if such a 'cause' is so singular, it would be recorded by the CDC and other health organizations. A search of said sources do not identify coal fired anything as a point source. Should you argue that cardio vascular related deaths hide these numbers, then provide me the data from the CDC or others scientific sources. BTW, don't quote the 'sources' on your webpage, try to be origional.
Pick up a copy of a book called The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, and read the section on “Routine Emissions.” It has several references to scientific studies, all of which are in essential agreement that pollution from coal-fired power kills many thousands of Americans each year. (By the way, this book is a classic, and it was written by a hard-core anti-communist professor of physics who actually lived under communism until he defected.)
The other books cited on my webpage, http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm , also contain many references. Bernard Cohen, was one of the top experts in the world on the health hazards of energy sources, and I have reprinted several of his articles there. Please read them and educate yourself.
As for why the CDC does not focus on coal-fired power I don’t know. For one thing, individual deaths are often difficult to attribute to coal pollution. That is why large studies are needed to estimate how many more people die of lung deseases in areas where coal is burned on a large scale.
Note also, by the way, that much of the basic research done on this matter preceded the widespread public use of the Internet by decades, and many of those old studies may not show up in an Internet search. That is why I urge you to read the books and articles I mentioned above.
Finally, please note that I am not in any way saying that coal-fired power should be stopped — unless it is replaced by nuclear power. Coal-fired power is far superior to no power at all, but it is also vastly dirtier than nuclear power.
The notion that this stuff is some kind of “conspiracy theory” is absolutely laughable, and anyone who thinks that is pathetically ignorant.
One more thing. There was a well-documented incident in London back in the 1950s in which a temperature inversion took place and the trapped coal pollution caused (IFIRC) something like 3,900 deaths in a single week.
That’s 3,900 deaths in a single week in a single city due to coal-fired power pollution.
Yes, our coal-fired power plants are a lot cleaner than those were, but you cannot deny the potential danger of coal pollution unless you wish to remain ignorant.
Sorry, data not a reference to a nuclear advocate that may or may not cite enviro wackos on ‘pollution’.
Try again.
1952 does not equal 2007, therefore not applicable to this era and discussion.
Secondly, London sits where a relatively stable weather pattern enhances local inversion of the atmosphere, trapping all sorts of nasty stuff in the air, in addition to its famous fog. Cannot project a localized phenomon into a global standard.
“Sorry, data not a reference to a nuclear advocate that may or may not cite enviro wackos on ‘pollution’.”
See the article called “The Hazard of Nuclear Power,” by Bernard Cohen, reprinted on my website. It is jam-packed full of data and references to peer-reviewed articles. If that doesn’t interest you, then you are not the least bit interested in “data.” In fact, I would have to wonder if you even know the word means.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/145
Or to put it in simpler terms for you, he relies upon junk science to support his claims.
The Hazards of Nuclear Power - Side reference to your 1952 smog story. Figure 1 from the article doesn't even list coal plants as a threat. He lists sources for 'notes' including referring to himself. Most 'notes' not coal related. Chock full of data and references, I think not.
Nuclear Power is Our Safest Choice - No references cited, only claims reports by organizations (such as UCS) that are enviromentalist wacko heavy.
Most Scientists Reject Radiation Phobia - Again, no proper references cited. More UCS junk science.
The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity - No references properly cited, nothing significant even about coal.
In fact, I would have to wonder if you even know the word means.
Is sarcasm is just one more service you offer?
BTW, I am a science professional who works in the environmental clean-up sector every day. Now, if I throw a stick, will you leave?
Dear Sir,
You are confused. Cohen uses the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), not because he particularly respects them (I suspect he doesn’t), but merely to show that even an *anti-nuclear* organization cannot honestly deny the benefits of nuclear power. If you missed that angle, then you either did not carefully read the article or your reading comprehension level is rather low.
Prof. Bernard Cohen is perhaps the top authority in the world on the health effects of energy generation. For you to try to belittle him this says more about you than it does about him.
For the record, here is his bio:
Bernard L. Cohen is Professor-Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy and of Environmental and Occupational Health at University of Pittsburgh. He has authored 6 books, over 300 papers in scientific journals, and about 75 articles in non-technical journals. He has presented invited lectures in 47 U.S. States, 6 Canadian provinces, 7 Japanese prefectures, 6 Australian states and territories, and 24 other countries in Europe, Asia and South America. His awards include the American Physical Society Bonner Prize and the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award. He has been elected Chairman of the Division of Nuclear Physics of the American Physical Society, and Chairman of the Division of Environmental Sciences of the American Nuclear Society.
“BTW, I am a science professional who works in the environmental clean-up sector every day. Now, if I throw a stick, will you leave?”
By the way, I’d be very interested to see how your bio compares to Bernard Cohen’s (given in previous post). Let’s see yours, genius.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.