Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When have any of you environmental whack jobs ever backed up any of your claims?
I have about a teaspoon of mercury...come and eat it and about 6 thermometers while your at it...since it's so safe...
Actually, it would probably just pass right through you and be perfectly harmless. MethylMercury is toxic, but pure Mercury is mostly inert.
That being said, even if a teaspoon of Mercury would kill you within hours, that doesn't mean the amounts you're exposed to from coal fired power plants is dangerous. As is the case with every known toxin, there is a threshold amount below which there are no harmful effects. Power plant emissions are well below that amount.
Junior I am no mode to play your silly game today.. I asked for proof of YOUR claims not anything else.. Now grow up..
You ask for proof and when someone supplies facts, you go into a denial mode.
Below is a response from Medscape. Medscape is a web resource for physicians and other health professionals.
What a response! It's a classic case of the serious denial of well known facts.
Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States
New York (MedscapeWire) Oct 3 A study in the October issue of the European Respiratory Journal describes how fine dust particles released into the atmosphere really constitute an independent cause of mortality, and its authors call for urgent review of permitted pollution limits. At the same time, the study conclusively invalidates the theory that a large proportion of such deaths are due to seasonal epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.
The harmful effect of air pollution on health, and especially on the lungs, is now beyond any doubt, as established recently in Europe by an international study that caused a considerable stir. And the situation has now been found to be equally alarming in the United States.
Most of the blame can be laid on dangerous microparticles present in exhaust gases. The name given by the specialists to such tiny dust particles is PM10s (PM stands for "particulate matter" and the 10 refers to a diameter size of less than 10 microns). Owing to their microscopic size, these dust particles penetrate deep into the lung alveoli, causing serious respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.
The study looked at 5 major US cities that carry out daily measurements of PM10 concentration in the atmosphere, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Led by Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, the team of scientists estimated the number of deaths potentially related to air pollution on a day-to-day basis.
According to the study, Minneapolis carries the highest risk factor: for every 10-mcg increment in the dust particles per cubic meter, the rate of daily mortality increases there by 1.3%. In Pittsburgh and Detroit, for the same concentration of pollutants, excess mortality is only 0.80% and 0.77%, again for every 10-mcg increment in pollution. The most populated city (Chicago, with 5 million inhabitants) comes fourth, and in Seattle the figure drops to only 0.44%.
The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.
The data used for the study were collected between 1986 and 1993. During that period, the 5 cities showed a daily pollution rate of around 30 mcg per cubic meter, which is equivalent to about 3% excess mortality. Because this pollution rate is far below the authorized limit of 150 mcg, however, Schwartz and colleagues wondered whether some of the deaths should not be attributed to epidemics of respiratory diseases, such as those related to influenza or pneumonia.
To find out, they identified critical periods by looking at the number of daily hospital admissions for pneumonia: if the number exceeded a certain threshold for 10 days or more, they would classify the outbreak as an epidemic. But while they did observe a slight decrease in the number of deaths due to pollution at the time of such respiratory epidemics, Schwartz and colleagues estimated that this effect could on the whole be considered negligible. "Our results confirm the strength of the causality between PM10 exposure and deaths," according to Alfesio Braga, coauthor of the study. "They show that this association is not due to any other external effects."
Medscape: Medscape Access
If one does a Google search using the words "Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States", a person can find the report and read it without a subscription.
Now, let me guess,,Medscape is a tool of of the leftist, socialist eco-nuts!
Can anyone find a documented study that says air pollution doesn't kill?
Also, a piece from the American Lung Association has also been furnished for the deniers in this thread, but of course the deniers do what they always do,,deny, deny, deny or deflect, deflect, deflect!
How do you folks ever make it through life, when you deny factual reality?
I asked another poster in denial to post documented facts that disprove posted facts regarding air pollution and of course, that poster came back with nothing! Now what does that tell you?
First of all the studies said repeatedly "could cause" and other similar words which mean exactly that could cause.. Could = possible but not necessarily. lots of things cause the same illnesses and they know it, thats why they say that.. its their safety net if they are wrong.. Now you may want to regulate everything under the sun simply because it may have health risks, but frankly I don't think its a good idea ever much less now when we are already in financial trouble. You went to spend trillions on a possibility? Oh sure why not it not real money to you is it... its not your money its other peoples money right? yeah just spend it all and print more, or raise taxes on the rich they can afford it.... yeah we know the mentality all too well...
Before you even dare speak to me like you know me, understand this.. I lost both parents to cancer. One when I was 19, the other just 7 years ago. 2 years ago I lost my oldest brother to a brain tumor. Cancer has taken more from me and my family than I like to remember.. it made me mad, and it still does.. All 3 of them smoked, and all 3 of them died of non-smoking related cancers. Does that make smoking non-cancerous? hell no! but it doesn't make smoking the cause of their cancer either. So what am I to do? I go on and hope its the end of cancer taking from my family. I am still learning how day by day.
But one thing I will not do, is live in fear my entire life over it. Nor will i let my fear allow me to become such a coward that I refuse to let anyone else live their life.. Smoking is bad for you no doubt, and the fact it was kept from people so long was terrible. And they should be punished for it. But if you look around today most people know the risks of smoking yet so many still do it. Why? because they want to..Why don't they make cigarettes and tobacco products illegal? Because they make a great deal of money from its sales and the markets that its built from.. Why don't you fear mongers go after the people who have allowed it to continue all these years? the truth is the same government that tell you they want to ban this or that cause its bad for you will not ban it, but rather tax it..Thats the hypocrisy in the system you want to give more power too everytime there is a problem you don't want to handle..Ban smoking then, and be done with it but don't expect me to support legislation that does nothing but generate income off their misfortune...
Now onto the other BS... if they can put the same crap in a shot and expect me to accept it, than they can't talk out of the other side of their face and tell me Its bad in trace amounts in the air. I can'rt believe the levels of reactionary hysterics among you.. Now produce the evidence not possibilities....
You ask for proof and when someone supplies facts, you go into a denial mode.
Below is a response from Medscape. Medscape is a web resource for physicians and other health professionals.
What a response! It's a classic case of the serious denial of well known facts.
Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States
New York (MedscapeWire) Oct 3 A study in the October issue of the European Respiratory Journal describes how fine dust particles released into the atmosphere really constitute an independent cause of mortality, and its authors call for urgent review of permitted pollution limits. At the same time, the study conclusively invalidates the theory that a large proportion of such deaths are due to seasonal epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.
The harmful effect of air pollution on health, and especially on the lungs, is now beyond any doubt, as established recently in Europe by an international study that caused a considerable stir. And the situation has now been found to be equally alarming in the United States.
Most of the blame can be laid on dangerous microparticles present in exhaust gases. The name given by the specialists to such tiny dust particles is PM10s (PM stands for "particulate matter" and the 10 refers to a diameter size of less than 10 microns). Owing to their microscopic size, these dust particles penetrate deep into the lung alveoli, causing serious respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.
The study looked at 5 major US cities that carry out daily measurements of PM10 concentration in the atmosphere, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Led by Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, the team of scientists estimated the number of deaths potentially related to air pollution on a day-to-day basis.
According to the study, Minneapolis carries the highest risk factor: for every 10-mcg increment in the dust particles per cubic meter, the rate of daily mortality increases there by 1.3%. In Pittsburgh and Detroit, for the same concentration of pollutants, excess mortality is only 0.80% and 0.77%, again for every 10-mcg increment in pollution. The most populated city (Chicago, with 5 million inhabitants) comes fourth, and in Seattle the figure drops to only 0.44%.
The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.
The data used for the study were collected between 1986 and 1993. During that period, the 5 cities showed a daily pollution rate of around 30 mcg per cubic meter, which is equivalent to about 3% excess mortality. Because this pollution rate is far below the authorized limit of 150 mcg, however, Schwartz and colleagues wondered whether some of the deaths should not be attributed to epidemics of respiratory diseases, such as those related to influenza or pneumonia.
To find out, they identified critical periods by looking at the number of daily hospital admissions for pneumonia: if the number exceeded a certain threshold for 10 days or more, they would classify the outbreak as an epidemic. But while they did observe a slight decrease in the number of deaths due to pollution at the time of such respiratory epidemics, Schwartz and colleagues estimated that this effect could on the whole be considered negligible. "Our results confirm the strength of the causality between PM10 exposure and deaths," according to Alfesio Braga, coauthor of the study. "They show that this association is not due to any other external effects."
Medscape: Medscape Access
If one does a Google search using the words "Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States", a person can find the report and read it without a subscription.
Now, let me guess,,Medscape is a tool of of the leftist, socialist eco-nuts!
Can anyone find a documented study that says air pollution doesn't kill?
Also, a piece from the American Lung Association has also been furnished for the deniers in this thread, but of course the deniers do what they always do,,deny, deny, deny or deflect, deflect, deflect!
How do you folks ever make it through life, when you deny factual reality?
I asked another poster in denial to post documented facts that disprove posted facts regarding air pollution and of course, that poster came back with nothing! Now what does that tell you?
First of all the studies said repeatedly "could cause" and other similar words which mean exactly that could cause.. Could = possible but not necessarily. lots of things cause the same illnesses and they know it, thats why they say that.. its their safety net if they are wrong.. Now you may want to regulate everything under the sun simply because it may have health risks, but frankly I don't think its a good idea ever much less now when we are already in financial trouble. You went to spend trillions on a possibility? Oh sure why not it not real money to you is it... its not your money its other peoples money right? yeah just spend it all and print more, or raise taxes on the rich they can afford it.... yeah we know the mentality all too well...
Before you even dare speak to me like you know me, understand this.. I lost both parents to cancer. One when I was 19, the other just 7 years ago. 2 years ago I lost my oldest brother to a brain tumor. Cancer has taken more from me and my family than I like to remember.. it made me mad, and it still does.. All 3 of them smoked, and all 3 of them died of non-smoking related cancers. Does that make smoking non-cancerous? hell no! but it doesn't make smoking the cause of their cancer either. So what am I to do? I go on and hope its the end of cancer taking from my family. I am still learning how day by day.
But one thing I will not do, is live in fear my entire life over it. Nor will i let my fear allow me to become such a coward that I refuse to let anyone else live their life.. Smoking is bad for you no doubt, and the fact it was kept from people so long was terrible. And they should be punished for it. But if you look around today most people know the risks of smoking yet so many still do it. Why? because they want to..Why don't they make cigarettes and tobacco products illegal? Because they make a great deal of money from its sales and the markets that its built from.. Why don't you fear mongers go after the people who have allowed it to continue all these years? the truth is the same government that tell you they want to ban this or that cause its bad for you will not ban it, but rather tax it..Thats the hypocrisy in the system you want to give more power too everytime there is a problem you don't want to handle..Ban smoking then, and be done with it but don't expect me to support legislation that does nothing but generate income off their misfortune...
Now onto the other BS... if they can put the same crap in a shot and expect me to accept it, than they can't talk out of the other side of their face and tell me Its bad in trace amounts in the air. I can'rt believe the levels of reactionary hysterics among you.. Now produce the evidence not possibilities....
OK, now I know you haven't done any research.
Most studies use mortality, hospital admissions and diagnosis in relation to specific geographic air pollution rates over time.
Methodological issues in studie... [J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060881/pdf/jepicomh00187-0005.pdf
Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74730/E83080.pdf
http://publichealth.jbpub.com/aschengrau/Aschengrau06.pdf
Model choice in time series studies of air pollution and mortality
There has plenty of proof about the effects of air polution in this thread and ZERO facts that dispute the claims about the effects of air pollution in regards to health and death.
the Obama administration is expected to move forward with long overdue safeguards that would finally protect our families from mercury pollution. As the mother of four children, I can only say it's about time.
First of all the studies said repeatedly "could cause" and other similar words which mean exactly that could cause.. Could = possible but not necessarily. lots of things cause the same illnesses and they know it, thats why they say that.. its their safety net if they are wrong.. Now you may want to regulate everything under the sun simply because it may have health risks, but frankly I don't think its a good idea ever much less now when we are already in financial trouble. You went to spend trillions on a possibility? Oh sure why not it not real money to you is it... its not your money its other peoples money right? yeah just spend it all and print more, or raise taxes on the rich they can afford it.... yeah we know the mentality all too well...
Before you even dare speak to me like you know me, understand this.. I lost both parents to cancer. One when I was 19, the other just 7 years ago. 2 years ago I lost my oldest brother to a brain tumor. Cancer has taken more from me and my family than I like to remember.. it made me mad, and it still does.. All 3 of them smoked, and all 3 of them died of non-smoking related cancers. Does that make smoking non-cancerous? hell no! but it doesn't make smoking the cause of their cancer either. So what am I to do? I go on and hope its the end of cancer taking from my family. I am still learning how day by day.
But one thing I will not do, is live in fear my entire life over it. Nor will i let my fear allow me to become such a coward that I refuse to let anyone else live their life.. Smoking is bad for you no doubt, and the fact it was kept from people so long was terrible. And they should be punished for it. But if you look around today most people know the risks of smoking yet so many still do it. Why? because they want to..Why don't they make cigarettes and tobacco products illegal? Because they make a great deal of money from its sales and the markets that its built from.. Why don't you fear mongers go after the people who have allowed it to continue all these years? the truth is the same government that tell you they want to ban this or that cause its bad for you will not ban it, but rather tax it..Thats the hypocrisy in the system you want to give more power too everytime there is a problem you don't want to handle..Ban smoking then, and be done with it but don't expect me to support legislation that does nothing but generate income off their misfortune...
Now onto the other BS... if they can put the same crap in a shot and expect me to accept it, than they can't talk out of the other side of their face and tell me Its bad in trace amounts in the air. I can'rt believe the levels of reactionary hysterics among you.. Now produce the evidence not possibilities....
OK, now I know you haven't done any research.
Most studies use mortality, hospital admissions and diagnosis in relation to specific geographic air pollution rates over time.
Methodological issues in studie... [J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060881/pdf/jepicomh00187-0005.pdf
Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74730/E83080.pdf
http://publichealth.jbpub.com/aschengrau/Aschengrau06.pdf
Model choice in time series studies of air pollution and mortality
There has plenty of proof about the effects of air polution in this thread and ZERO facts that dispute the claims about the effects of air pollution in regards to health and death.
NOW provide the links to proof, facts and figures that prove, Mercury byproducts of Coal fired plants are the cause of the deaths. You see the government already regulates mercury levels and there is no evidence provided in this thread that proves or even hints that mercury is somehow causing the deaths you have linked to.
The irony is so thick, we need a chain saw to cut through it. Steve Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to chemical, materials, energy, food, beverage, and other consumer product-related businesses and organizations...a PR FIRM...
You claim I don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact. Milloy and your corporate paid for PR firms have been spewing propaganda since the 1950's.
It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by Milloy and paid for climate deniers. So you spew PR, not science.
WHY don't you try educating yourself, instead of just emoting?
Emoting??? Dude that is all your propaganda is doing.. jesus dude do you understand that a possibility is not proof? its a possibility, and thats it..
jesus you flaming loon all they have to do is imply it may be bad for you and you are ready to pass a new law.. Grow up man, its fear driven responses not fact.. Stop watching hollywood movies for history and facts, its not always like a oliver stone film moron...
Well you have made the contrasts clear. So let's be concise. I believe ingesting arsenic, lead, mercury, dioxins, formaldehyde, benzene, radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride are harmful and contribute to illness and deaths.
YOU DON'T...so you are calling me a 'flaming loon'...
You ask for proof and when someone supplies facts, you go into a denial mode.
Below is a response from Medscape. Medscape is a web resource for physicians and other health professionals.
What a response! It's a classic case of the serious denial of well known facts.
Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States
New York (MedscapeWire) Oct 3 A study in the October issue of the European Respiratory Journal describes how fine dust particles released into the atmosphere really constitute an independent cause of mortality, and its authors call for urgent review of permitted pollution limits. At the same time, the study conclusively invalidates the theory that a large proportion of such deaths are due to seasonal epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.
The harmful effect of air pollution on health, and especially on the lungs, is now beyond any doubt, as established recently in Europe by an international study that caused a considerable stir. And the situation has now been found to be equally alarming in the United States.
Most of the blame can be laid on dangerous microparticles present in exhaust gases. The name given by the specialists to such tiny dust particles is PM10s (PM stands for "particulate matter" and the 10 refers to a diameter size of less than 10 microns). Owing to their microscopic size, these dust particles penetrate deep into the lung alveoli, causing serious respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.
The study looked at 5 major US cities that carry out daily measurements of PM10 concentration in the atmosphere, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Led by Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, the team of scientists estimated the number of deaths potentially related to air pollution on a day-to-day basis.
According to the study, Minneapolis carries the highest risk factor: for every 10-mcg increment in the dust particles per cubic meter, the rate of daily mortality increases there by 1.3%. In Pittsburgh and Detroit, for the same concentration of pollutants, excess mortality is only 0.80% and 0.77%, again for every 10-mcg increment in pollution. The most populated city (Chicago, with 5 million inhabitants) comes fourth, and in Seattle the figure drops to only 0.44%.
The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.
The data used for the study were collected between 1986 and 1993. During that period, the 5 cities showed a daily pollution rate of around 30 mcg per cubic meter, which is equivalent to about 3% excess mortality. Because this pollution rate is far below the authorized limit of 150 mcg, however, Schwartz and colleagues wondered whether some of the deaths should not be attributed to epidemics of respiratory diseases, such as those related to influenza or pneumonia.
To find out, they identified critical periods by looking at the number of daily hospital admissions for pneumonia: if the number exceeded a certain threshold for 10 days or more, they would classify the outbreak as an epidemic. But while they did observe a slight decrease in the number of deaths due to pollution at the time of such respiratory epidemics, Schwartz and colleagues estimated that this effect could on the whole be considered negligible. "Our results confirm the strength of the causality between PM10 exposure and deaths," according to Alfesio Braga, coauthor of the study. "They show that this association is not due to any other external effects."
Medscape: Medscape Access
If one does a Google search using the words "Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States", a person can find the report and read it without a subscription.
Now, let me guess,,Medscape is a tool of of the leftist, socialist eco-nuts!
Can anyone find a documented study that says air pollution doesn't kill?
Also, a piece from the American Lung Association has also been furnished for the deniers in this thread, but of course the deniers do what they always do,,deny, deny, deny or deflect, deflect, deflect!
How do you folks ever make it through life, when you deny factual reality?
I asked another poster in denial to post documented facts that disprove posted facts regarding air pollution and of course, that poster came back with nothing! Now what does that tell you?
First of all the studies said repeatedly "could cause" and other similar words which mean exactly that could cause.. Could = possible but not necessarily. lots of things cause the same illnesses and they know it, thats why they say that.. its their safety net if they are wrong.. Now you may want to regulate everything under the sun simply because it may have health risks, but frankly I don't think its a good idea ever much less now when we are already in financial trouble. You went to spend trillions on a possibility? Oh sure why not it not real money to you is it... its not your money its other peoples money right? yeah just spend it all and print more, or raise taxes on the rich they can afford it.... yeah we know the mentality all too well...
Before you even dare speak to me like you know me, understand this.. I lost both parents to cancer. One when I was 19, the other just 7 years ago. 2 years ago I lost my oldest brother to a brain tumor. Cancer has taken more from me and my family than I like to remember.. it made me mad, and it still does.. All 3 of them smoked, and all 3 of them died of non-smoking related cancers. Does that make smoking non-cancerous? hell no! but it doesn't make smoking the cause of their cancer either. So what am I to do? I go on and hope its the end of cancer taking from my family. I am still learning how day by day.
But one thing I will not do, is live in fear my entire life over it. Nor will i let my fear allow me to become such a coward that I refuse to let anyone else live their life.. Smoking is bad for you no doubt, and the fact it was kept from people so long was terrible. And they should be punished for it. But if you look around today most people know the risks of smoking yet so many still do it. Why? because they want to..Why don't they make cigarettes and tobacco products illegal? Because they make a great deal of money from its sales and the markets that its built from.. Why don't you fear mongers go after the people who have allowed it to continue all these years? the truth is the same government that tell you they want to ban this or that cause its bad for you will not ban it, but rather tax it..Thats the hypocrisy in the system you want to give more power too everytime there is a problem you don't want to handle..Ban smoking then, and be done with it but don't expect me to support legislation that does nothing but generate income off their misfortune...
Now onto the other BS... if they can put the same crap in a shot and expect me to accept it, than they can't talk out of the other side of their face and tell me Its bad in trace amounts in the air. I can'rt believe the levels of reactionary hysterics among you.. Now produce the evidence not possibilities....
OK, now I know you haven't done any research.
Most studies use mortality, hospital admissions and diagnosis in relation to specific geographic air pollution rates over time.
Methodological issues in studie... [J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060881/pdf/jepicomh00187-0005.pdf
Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74730/E83080.pdf
http://publichealth.jbpub.com/aschengrau/Aschengrau06.pdf
Model choice in time series studies of air pollution and mortality
There has plenty of proof about the effects of air polution in this thread and ZERO facts that dispute the claims about the effects of air pollution in regards to health and death.
I am STILL waiting for them to explain how suddenly after over 100 years of Coal fired plants SUDDENLY we have a problem. If the danger was there why don't we have historical records of mass disease and death ( even unaccounted ones) around, near and in the wind pattern of Coal fired plants?
I am STILL waiting for them to explain how suddenly after over 100 years of Coal fired plants SUDDENLY we have a problem. If the danger was there why don't we have historical records of mass disease and death ( even unaccounted ones) around, near and in the wind pattern of Coal fired plants?
They can't even show that the incidence of medical problems is higher downwind of coal fired power plants. All they have are statistical inferences based on the most tortured interpretations imaginable of toxicity data.
First of all the studies said repeatedly "could cause" and other similar words which mean exactly that could cause.. Could = possible but not necessarily. lots of things cause the same illnesses and they know it, thats why they say that.. its their safety net if they are wrong.. Now you may want to regulate everything under the sun simply because it may have health risks, but frankly I don't think its a good idea ever much less now when we are already in financial trouble. You went to spend trillions on a possibility? Oh sure why not it not real money to you is it... its not your money its other peoples money right? yeah just spend it all and print more, or raise taxes on the rich they can afford it.... yeah we know the mentality all too well...
Before you even dare speak to me like you know me, understand this.. I lost both parents to cancer. One when I was 19, the other just 7 years ago. 2 years ago I lost my oldest brother to a brain tumor. Cancer has taken more from me and my family than I like to remember.. it made me mad, and it still does.. All 3 of them smoked, and all 3 of them died of non-smoking related cancers. Does that make smoking non-cancerous? hell no! but it doesn't make smoking the cause of their cancer either. So what am I to do? I go on and hope its the end of cancer taking from my family. I am still learning how day by day.
But one thing I will not do, is live in fear my entire life over it. Nor will i let my fear allow me to become such a coward that I refuse to let anyone else live their life.. Smoking is bad for you no doubt, and the fact it was kept from people so long was terrible. And they should be punished for it. But if you look around today most people know the risks of smoking yet so many still do it. Why? because they want to..Why don't they make cigarettes and tobacco products illegal? Because they make a great deal of money from its sales and the markets that its built from.. Why don't you fear mongers go after the people who have allowed it to continue all these years? the truth is the same government that tell you they want to ban this or that cause its bad for you will not ban it, but rather tax it..Thats the hypocrisy in the system you want to give more power too everytime there is a problem you don't want to handle..Ban smoking then, and be done with it but don't expect me to support legislation that does nothing but generate income off their misfortune...
Now onto the other BS... if they can put the same crap in a shot and expect me to accept it, than they can't talk out of the other side of their face and tell me Its bad in trace amounts in the air. I can'rt believe the levels of reactionary hysterics among you.. Now produce the evidence not possibilities....
OK, now I know you haven't done any research.
Most studies use mortality, hospital admissions and diagnosis in relation to specific geographic air pollution rates over time.
Methodological issues in studie... [J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060881/pdf/jepicomh00187-0005.pdf
Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74730/E83080.pdf
http://publichealth.jbpub.com/aschengrau/Aschengrau06.pdf
Model choice in time series studies of air pollution and mortality
There has plenty of proof about the effects of air polution in this thread and ZERO facts that dispute the claims about the effects of air pollution in regards to health and death.
Who the hell are you thinking you know me? I have never corresponded with you in the time I been here to my knowledge... So whose little clone are you coward?
You barking moonbat, you don't know me, if you do its not using that nickname.. Now man up and drop the mask coward...
Post links till you get carpal tunnel, it won't make them fact or you anymore truthful..
Fact is not one of them is proof that modern coal burning emissions is killing anyone or has killed anyone, or will definitely kill someone. If one of them does say that explicitly please point it out to me.. I will wait..
OK, now I know you haven't done any research.
Most studies use mortality, hospital admissions and diagnosis in relation to specific geographic air pollution rates over time.
Methodological issues in studie... [J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060881/pdf/jepicomh00187-0005.pdf
Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74730/E83080.pdf
http://publichealth.jbpub.com/aschengrau/Aschengrau06.pdf
Model choice in time series studies of air pollution and mortality
There has plenty of proof about the effects of air polution in this thread and ZERO facts that dispute the claims about the effects of air pollution in regards to health and death.
Who the hell are you thinking you know me? I have never corresponded with you in the time I been here to my knowledge... So whose little clone are you coward?
You barking moonbat, you don't know me, if you do its not using that nickname.. Now man up and drop the mask coward...
Post links till you get carpal tunnel, it won't make them fact or you anymore truthful..
Fact is not one of them is proof that modern coal burning emissions is killing anyone or has killed anyone, or will definitely kill someone. If one of them does say that explicitly please point it out to me.. I will wait..
Moonbat? No, I have a daughter with severe asthma and had bouts where she literally fought for her life. My father died from chronic respiratory illness. Therefore I have always have had a very keen interest in respiratory illnesses and the causes. I have been studying the subject for decades. My daughter who has severe asthma is a RCP and sits in a fairly high position with a highly regarded national company in the respiratory care industry. My daughter has worked with people that you claim don't exist. My dad died from something that is that you say doesn't exist.
Children who grow up in urban areas with high vehicle traffic nearby grow up with much higher than avf respirirator ailments and even have "stunted" lungs.
OK, now I know you haven't done any research.
Most studies use mortality, hospital admissions and diagnosis in relation to specific geographic air pollution rates over time.
Methodological issues in studie... [J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060881/pdf/jepicomh00187-0005.pdf
Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies?
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74730/E83080.pdf
http://publichealth.jbpub.com/aschengrau/Aschengrau06.pdf
Model choice in time series studies of air pollution and mortality
There has plenty of proof about the effects of air polution in this thread and ZERO facts that dispute the claims about the effects of air pollution in regards to health and death.
Who the hell are you thinking you know me? I have never corresponded with you in the time I been here to my knowledge... So whose little clone are you coward?
You barking moonbat, you don't know me, if you do its not using that nickname.. Now man up and drop the mask coward...
Post links till you get carpal tunnel, it won't make them fact or you anymore truthful..
Fact is not one of them is proof that modern coal burning emissions is killing anyone or has killed anyone, or will definitely kill someone. If one of them does say that explicitly please point it out to me.. I will wait..
Moonbat? No, I have a daughter with severe asthma and had bouts where she literally fought for her life. My father died from chronic respiratory illness. Therefore I have always have had a very keen interest in respiratory illnesses and the causes. I have been studying the subject for decades. My daughter who has severe asthma is a RCP and sits in a fairly high position with a highly regarded national company in the respiratory care industry. My daughter has worked with people that you claim don't exist. My dad died from something that is that you say doesn't exist.
I am STILL waiting for them to explain how suddenly after over 100 years of Coal fired plants SUDDENLY we have a problem. If the danger was there why don't we have historical records of mass disease and death ( even unaccounted ones) around, near and in the wind pattern of Coal fired plants?
They can't even show that the incidence of medical problems is higher downwind of coal fired power plants. All they have are statistical inferences based on the most tortured interpretations imaginable of toxicity data.
I am STILL waiting for them to explain how suddenly after over 100 years of Coal fired plants SUDDENLY we have a problem. If the danger was there why don't we have historical records of mass disease and death ( even unaccounted ones) around, near and in the wind pattern of Coal fired plants?
They can't even show that the incidence of medical problems is higher downwind of coal fired power plants. All they have are statistical inferences based on the most tortured interpretations imaginable of toxicity data.
go suck on a coal power plants smoke stack...wonder what kind of strawman/deflection u come up with this time...
Children who grow up in urban areas with high vehicle traffic nearby grow up with much higher than avf respirirator ailments and even have "stunted" lungs.
Provide evidence this is caused by mercury.
go suck on a coal power plants smoke stack...wonder what kind of strawman/deflection u come up with this time...
