Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[Big Fitz]

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. ******* 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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwxybr3MBOY]Irony - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Big Fitz]

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

Hysterical propaganda over fewer deaths a year than drunk driving with no provable direct cause linking them is not science. It's fear-mongering.

 

[bripat9643]

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

EcoMall?

Puhleeze!

Your site didn't even give the methodology used by the so-called "study." The "Clean Air Task Force" is a leftwing propaganda organ.

It's propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Hysterical propaganda over fewer deaths a year than drunk driving with no provable direct cause linking them is not science. It's fear-mongering.

Those "deaths" are entirely fictional. They are assumed by extrapolating from deaths caused by massive amounts of whatever substance is being studied. Of course, If a massive dose of SO2 causes death, that doesn't mean a minute amount of it will harm a soul. If Four people fall from 50 feet, two of them (50%) may get injured, but that doesn't mean that if 200 million people fall from six inches that one million of them will be injured. However, that is the logic of EPA studies on the dangers of pollution.

No study has ever shown an increase in the claimed health problems in the vicinity of coal fired power plants. That's because there is no such effect.

The health benefits from tightening these regulations is zero, nada, zip.

 

[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.

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

Your training or experience doesn't qualify you to determine that.

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. ******* crybabies.

Your petulant whining won't alter the fact that these new EPA regulations will cost consumers hundreds of billions in higher utility bills with no detectible health benefits. That's what real scientists say, not stooges on the EPA payroll.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Yes, it was predictable that I would post the simple facts. The EPA gins up propaganda to support it's anti-capitalist, anti coal agenda. Science has nothing to do with it. If you pay enough, you can find so-called "scientists" who will prove whatever you want them to prove, an the EPA pays plenty.

 

[daveman]

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.

My, you sure are cheerful about people being put out of work and energy costs rising, aren't you?

Obama has spoken! Let no one disagree!

 

[editec]

The effluvium from middle American's older coal fired plants had polluted most of the East Coasts nature bodies of water.

Mercury is the problem.

 

[bripat9643]

The effluvium from middle American's older coal fired plants had polluted most of the East Coasts nature bodies of water.

Mercury is the problem.

Emissions from American coal plants account for 44 tons of mercury / year. Emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes and undersea vents total about 10,000 tons /year.

Your claim is pure horseshit.

 

[Big Fitz]

The effluvium from middle American's older coal fired plants had polluted most of the East Coasts nature bodies of water.

Mercury is the problem.

Emissions from American coal plants account for 44 tons of mercury / year. Emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes and undersea vents total about 10,000 tons /year.

Your claim is pure horseshit.

I love how he runs his mouth about how we would do as he predicted but can't back up the data. After all, it's good data that has no proof of coming from a empiracally tested source, or using real scientific methods. We shouldn't be curious about that at all. Reminds me of some moron on the witness stand being questioned.

Where were you on the night of the murder?

That's a lovely tie you have on.

That is irrelevant. Where were you?

I KNEW you were going to ask me about that again! Why should I bother answering at all? Who's your habidasher?

 

[Listening]

Those plants are apparently no longer economically viable unless the owners are willing to invest more money to clean up their discharge.

As the owners are unwilling to make that investment to make those plants cleaner, they are electing to close down operations.

Their choice, kids, their choice.

Now the capitalist models suggests that other investors will, upon sensing financial opportunity due to rising prices for energy, build cleaner coal fired plants to replace them.

What's wrong with that?

Don't you people have FAITH in the invisible hand of the market?

Apparently you don't have faith in that invisible hand of the market when it dopeslaps the people with money.

Why is it that you have every confidence in the invisible hand when it is dopeslapping consumers but not businesses?

Those plants that are shutting down are competeing with plants that DON'T spew crap into the air.

Level playing field and they just cannot compete.

I thought you guys all loved the CREATIVE DESTRUCTION of capitalism.

Well?

Do you or do you not believe in that?

What an incredibly stupid comment.

There was no discharge that needed to be cleaned up.

You have been tragically misinformed, Lad.

Go read a book.

Educate yourself.

If I have been misinformed it is only because I might give some credibility to your posts.

When you produce some evidence to back up your claim....I'll be right here.

If you need a book on logic, I can recommend a few.

 

[Listening]

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. ******* crybabies.

What you "know" does not matter.

What you have produced to substanciate your claim is....well, there hasn't been anything.

So, keep yacking...it seems to be what you are good at.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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

Hysterical propaganda over fewer deaths a year than drunk driving with no provable direct cause linking them is not science. It's fear-mongering.

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I looked into this on my own. You made a lot of sound, logical points and I found much to support them - usually published by the coal industry. What I found to counter those reports were usually published by green tech magazines etc...

Then I found this:

Report: U.S. coal power plants emit toxic air pollutants

I'd be interested in your commentary.

 

[bripat9643]

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I looked into this on my own. You made a lot of sound, logical points and I found much to support them - usually published by the coal industry. What I found to counter those reports were usually published by green tech magazines etc...

Then I found this:

Report: U.S. coal power plants emit toxic air pollutants

I'd be interested in your commentary.

The vast bulk of coal emissions are comprised of relatively harmless stuff like SO2 and NOx. Arsenic and Mercury are present only in trace amounts.

The fact is that the air in the USA is quite clean. The EPA cannot demonstrate a single case of anyone getting sick from air pollution. All they can do is extrapolate from the number of people who get sick from massive doses of toxic substances. That's a methodology that has never been proven to be valid. There's plenty of evidence that it's ridiculous.

 

[DaGoose]

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

Hysterical propaganda over fewer deaths a year than drunk driving with no provable direct cause linking them is not science. It's fear-mongering.

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I looked into this on my own. You made a lot of sound, logical points and I found much to support them - usually published by the coal industry. What I found to counter those reports were usually published by green tech magazines etc...

Then I found this:

Report: U.S. coal power plants emit toxic air pollutants

I'd be interested in your commentary.

Give it up IndependntLogic. Nothing you say or post will ever convince these morons that power plants have ever put out any kind of pollution.

Burning coal is actually GOOD for the environment!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Hysterical propaganda over fewer deaths a year than drunk driving with no provable direct cause linking them is not science. It's fear-mongering.

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I looked into this on my own. You made a lot of sound, logical points and I found much to support them - usually published by the coal industry. What I found to counter those reports were usually published by green tech magazines etc...

Then I found this:

Report: U.S. coal power plants emit toxic air pollutants

I'd be interested in your commentary.

Give it up IndependntLogic. Nothing you say or post will ever convince these morons that power plants have ever put out any kind of pollution.

Burning coal is actually GOOD for the environment!!

You ever get chilly with that draft blowing between you ears gewseshit? Find me any time I stated that burning coal is 'good for the environment', then define the word 'good'.

I looked at the USA Today article and found two interesting things. First, It's in an environmental advocacy section, and second, the two sources are the radical EPA study trying to justify the lowering of standards, as well as the ALA who has a long history of wanting pure air even at impossible costs.

The issue isn't that there are pollutants, but rather how much pollutants are tolerable. For instance, if you drink water with a 1 parts per thousand arsenic, you're probably going to die and soon. On the other hand, water with 1 part per billion, you're likely to experience no ill effects save for over the extremely long term. Exposure limits are a fact of life. We have them for radiation (an x ray every year isn't going to give you cancer but if you're taking 200 a day... welll...) as well as chemicals and even vitamins. Get to much iron in you diet and you can die, but it's essential.

What the left is arguing is that there is no such thing as an exposure limit, or they are arguing for ludicrously low ones that have no reflection in how it effects life, but gives them secure work and political power to do all sorts of social engineering.

What I want is better proof from non compromised sources like the EPA, or even the coal industry that says we have to make changes. The problem is, everyone has an agenda so you have to keep that in mind, and wait till there is good enough proof to show both problem, and reasonable solution so you don't make policy that goes all "Man of La Mancha" on you. That helps no one but the kooks.


Yes those dangerous substances exist, but in minute low risk quantities.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Hysterical propaganda over fewer deaths a year than drunk driving with no provable direct cause linking them is not science. It's fear-mongering.

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I looked into this on my own. You made a lot of sound, logical points and I found much to support them - usually published by the coal industry. What I found to counter those reports were usually published by green tech magazines etc...

Then I found this:

Report: U.S. coal power plants emit toxic air pollutants

I'd be interested in your commentary.

Give it up IndependntLogic. Nothing you say or post will ever convince these morons that power plants have ever put out any kind of pollution.

Burning coal is actually GOOD for the environment!!

Well here's the thing. There are some things about me that don't apply to the overwhelming majority of posters here. I don't claim or pretend to be an expert on everything. I've never seen so many nuclear physicists who practice Constitutional Law in their spare time as here
So I'm seeing claims that mining and burning coal both DO NOT cause health problems for those nearby. The sources that claim this seem biased. The National Coal Industry etc...
Then i look at the sources who claim that coal can produce some nasty juju. The EPA, Time, USAToday... So it's not just like say GreenPeace or the Society of TreeHuggery.
Also, I don't see a motive for the Virginia Institute of Health or even the EPA to make falseclaims in this regard. It's not like they make a profit.

So it's hard for me to believe that all these higher levels of illness surrounding these areas is just coincidence. I remember growing up in Detroit (which is why I'm no fan of the UAW). The Big 3 tried to claim their plants were not doing anything harmful to the air or water. All these chemicals occured naturally in nature and so on... Of course the problem for them was all the dead fish floating in the lakes and the grey cloud over the city.

So now I'm curious about this phrase I keep seeing: Clean Coal.

 

[bripat9643]

I looked at the USA Today article and found two interesting things. First, It's in an environmental advocacy section, and second, the two sources are the radical EPA study trying to justify the lowering of standards, as well as the ALA who has a long history of wanting pure air even at impossible costs.

The EPA has given $20 million to the ALA, so they are hardly a disinterested source. They've been turned into a propaganda arm of the EPA.

That's how science has been corrupted in this country.

 

[newpolitics]

I looked at the USA Today article and found two interesting things. First, It's in an environmental advocacy section, and second, the two sources are the radical EPA study trying to justify the lowering of standards, as well as the ALA who has a long history of wanting pure air even at impossible costs.

The EPA has given $20 million to the ALA, so they are hardly a disinterested source. They've been turned into a propaganda arm of the EPA.

That's how science has been corrupted in this country.

I love how some of you ******* pubs have turned caring about our environment, air quality, water quality, and the welfare of our animal companions in their natural habitats- into scientific 'corruption.' You're all jaded, if you ask me. Sure, there may be a few scientists that have been swooned by the almighty dollar in the interests of a backing corporation or politician, even a regulatory agency, but this conspiratorial world view of science in general is getting a bit tiring, and painting green efforts as an attempt to satisfy the green industry is laughable if you simply compare the size green industry to the oil industry. Who profits more? The oil industry. Who is currently 'in power' (in control of the majority of energy supply)? The oil industry. The conservative agenda to discredit green science falls apart at the mere glance at the big picture of who stands to benefit on the current status quo system.

 

[editec]

The effluvium from middle American's older coal fired plants had polluted most of the East Coasts nature bodies of water.

Mercury is the problem.

Emissions from American coal plants account for 44 tons of mercury / year. Emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes and undersea vents total about 10,000 tons /year.

Your claim is pure horseshit.

If you contention that antropogenic mercury wasn't happening was true, if mercury pollution was merely the problem of worldwide vocanic activity, the EAST coast of the USA, wouldn't have pollution levels higher than the rest of the nation.

Note the higher incidence of mercury pollution in the east coast?

That mostly from Mid western COAL-FIRED PLANTS, lad.

The jet stream naturally takes the pollution east where it settles onto the east coast.

Enjoy the fishing here in Maine but don't eat the fish!