Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970

[juvenissun]

The Koch brothers control Congress with millions of dollars a year in donations? Government should ram through a fast nuclear build out while educating the public and shutting up all those Koch brother lobbyists.

Why does this situation persist? And why didn't the government do it yet? You have to dig the problem down in order to find where the real problem is. And I bet, the end of it is a very simple, but practical problem you do not have a solution to it. It would be a similar situation to my BBQ example.

I am not sure why or how the French government decided not to use coal. One possible reason is that there is not much coal reserve in France. Britain and Germany are not any less advanced than France. However, they DO have a lot of coal reserves. Did they abandon coal yet?

 

[Heissonear]

Coal! And more coal use to come.

Those who see this as only a negative do not see why America and now China and India are INCREASING its use.

I wish alternative were more mature and "economically established" during this current rise in use of energy by nations of the world.

Like what happen in America in the 1970's and 1980's, a energy strategy trend set to transition from hydrocarbons to "renewables", and build renewables into the fabric of America energy use, it never happened because "renewable energy technology" was not ready.

The same is repeating before our eyes, with building renewables into the fabric of global energy use failing through not being ready; advanced enough to support global energy demand.

We must face our weakness, and recognize what is happening.

Pointing towards nuclear energy is closing your eyes and hoping for something that does not look promising to happen, though I think national leaders are missing the boat in not establishing nuclear energy at this time rather than coal.

But coal use is on the rise, big time. Like it or not

Over the past decade China has averaged building one coal power plant ~every two weeks. India is not far behind in building more also.

 

[Michael]

Michael, EclipseNow, etc.

My BBQ analogy is used to illustrate the important factors of psychology and sociology behind the use of coal. They are in different scale, but are in the same nature.

If any country in this world is going to forsake the use of coal, the US should be among the first.

I agree, but that is only going to happen when we start replacing coal plants with Molten Salt reactors IMO. Educating the public seems to be the first order of business as your resistance to change demonstrates.

However, we are not doing that and we are not going to do that in the next 100 years.

We're not doing it currently, but we better have done so within about 40-50 years or there will be very grave consequences.

You people may value life and environment more than coal. But, let me ask you: why can't we do it NOW? People are not informed must not be the reason. Your fatality statistics are not new and are around for quite a while. So, you give me ONE reason that we are still using coal today. And I shall see how would you suggest a way to solve that problem.

Well the obvious reasons that comes to mind are because people are currently unaware, or simply callous of the fact that human beings are being killed by the coal industry in droves, and/or they have an irrational fear of nuclear energy, or both.

Coal is a good thing. Just like any other good, but potentially dangerous things, we should use it wisely.

Define "good"? If nuclear power plants were killing 10,000 human beings a day, would you call that "good"?

 

[Michael]

Coal! And more coal use to come.

Those who see this as only a negative do not see why America and now China and India are INCREASING its use.

I wish alternative were more mature and "economically established" during this current rise in use of energy by nations of the world.

Actually nuclear power is "mature enough' to replace coal right this minute. With a little R&D, and some financial investment, it could replace coal outright and make the air a lot cleaner, and save a lot of human suffering.

Like what happen in America in the 1970's and 1980's, a energy strategy trend set to transition from hydrocarbons to "renewables", and build renewables into the fabric of America energy use, it never happened because "renewable energy technology" was not ready.

Hmmmm. That's probably accurate to a degree but renewables aren't likely to replace coal anyway due to the fact that they aren't 100 percent "on' the moment you wish them to be on. You need 100 percent run time to replace coal, hence the need for more nuclear power plants. We do see a large investment occurring in renewables these days, and the best strategies would definitely include them in the future too.

The same is repeating before our eyes, with building renewable into the fabric of global energy use failing through not being ready; advanced enough to support global energy demand.

The inherent problem with renewables is that they aren't 100 percent reliable. Wind doesn't always blow, and sometimes the sun is covered by clouds. Renewables have their place in an energy future but it's unlikely renewables alone could ever replace coal.

We must face our weakness, and recognize what is happening.

I do, but I don't favor doing absolutely nothing about those weaknesses.

Pointing towards nuclear energy is closing your eyes and hoping for something that does not look promising to happen, though I think national leaders are missing the boat in not establishing nuclear energy at this time rather than coal.

So if they're missing the boat, why aren't we complaining to them about it?

But coal use is on the rise, big time. Like it or not

That doesn't make it safer or good. It just an unfortunately reality for the time being.

The problem is that as China and India and Africa start to grow and use power at the same rates as the West, the air pollution problems simply go through the roof, and human beings start to die at unprecedented rates. Coal is not a long term solution to our energy problems. It's a tragedy in the making in fact.

 

[Michael]

Why does this situation persist?

I'd say that our irrational fear of nuclear energy is the main problem, along with a complete lack of investment in safer nuclear designs.

And why didn't the government do it yet?

Probably for the same reason they haven't balanced a budget in over a decade. The fossil fuel industry corrupts the political system by flooding it with campaign contributions.

You have to dig the problem down in order to find where the real problem is. And I bet, the end of it is a very simple, but practical problem you do not have a solution to it. It would be a similar situation to my BBQ example.

But there is a practical solution to the problem and we should be working on fixing the problem rather than burying our heads in the sand and continuing to let them pollute our air and water.

I am not sure why or how the French government decided not to use coal. One possible reason is that there is not much coal reserve in France. Britain and Germany are not any less advanced than France. However, they DO have a lot of coal reserves. Did they abandon coal yet?

I doubt anyone is abandoning coal outright due to political forces at play. On the other hand, they should be weaning themselves away from an industry that is killing thousands of human beings a day!

 

[KWCrazy]

I wish coal had run out in the 1960's! We would have been forced to move onto clean nuclear and renewable power.

One word; Fukushima. Coal fired power plants don't melt down, and they provide efficient, affordable energy so that people can go on wild rants about how evil coal is destroying the world.
Hint for you. Coal is a resource God gave us. It serves no other purpose than to be used for fuel.

 

[KWCrazy]

The Koch brothers control Congress with millions of dollars a year in donations? Government should ram through a fast nuclear build out while educating the public and shutting up all those Koch brother lobbyists.

Do you know why Harry Reid hates the Koch brothers? It's simple. They don't donate to Democrats. Every word that comes from that old man's mouth is a lie. Harry Reid is such an evil man that anyone he hates must be worthy of respect.

By the way. Global warming hasn't happened in 17 years.

 

[Michael]

One word; Fukushima. Coal fired power plants don't melt down, and they provide efficient, affordable energy so that people can go on wild rants about how evil coal is destroying the world.
Hint for you. Coal is a resource God gave us. It serves no other purpose than to be used for fuel.

Molten Salt reactors don't melt down either. Only the oldest nuclear reactor designs that are intended to support the military industrial complex have a problem with 'melting down'. Safer designs exist. We've simply never implemented them because we wanted to build bombs rather than use the safest possible design. Radioactivity is a natural resource that God gave us too. We all experience radioactivity on a daily basis. If you intend to travel by jet, you'll get a serious dose compared to what you'll experience today if you simply go about your normal business.

Keep in mind that even at Fukushima and Chernobyl combined, the number of deaths they caused *pale* in comparison to the number of people that die on a weekly basis due to our use of fossil fuels as an energy source. Coal fired plants kill people every day in numbers that are simply *astounding* and horrifying compared to nuclear energy.

 

[Michael]

Do you know why Harry Reid hates the Koch brothers? It's simple. They don't donate to Democrats. Every word that comes from that old man's mouth is a lie. Harry Reid is such an evil man that anyone he hates must be worthy of respect.

By the way. Global warming hasn't happened in 17 years.

People have died from air pollution every single day of those 17 years however. Do you simply not care about them?

 

[juvenissun]

Keep in mind that even at Fukushima and Chernobyl combined, the number of deaths they caused *pale* in comparison to the number of people that die on a weekly basis due to our use of fossil fuels as an energy source. Coal fired plants kill people every day in numbers that are simply *astounding* and horrifying compared to nuclear energy.

This may be, or may not be true. It is not a clear cut like the case in Chernobyl. Air pollution, water pollution are bad at some places. But they are NOT all caused by burning coal. So, the ban of using coal will NOT eliminate the problem. You have to ban the oil all together. General public are not convinced. I am not even convinced before I can carefully examine the data. As I said in my first reply to this thread, now a day, everything kills. You can hardly tell which one has a bigger bullet.

I would say, just use 1/10 or even 1/100 of the money than the cost for whatever type of nuclear plant, we can make the coal burning safely everywhere in the world. Yes, we are not even investing in doing that. That is why I say the burning of coal is unstoppable. We just have to do our best and to live with it.

 

[juvenissun]

People have died from air pollution every single day of those 17 years however. Do you simply not care about them?

So, what are you going to do? Are you going to switch to an E-car? I won't. And I will continue to burn coal for my BBQ.

 

[Michael]

This may be, or may not be true. It is not a clear cut like the case in Chernobyl. Air pollution, water pollution are bad at some places. But they are NOT all caused by burning coal. So, the ban of using coal will NOT eliminate the problem.

Let me be clear that I'm not proposing that we ban coal or anything else. I'm advocating that we simply stop building coal and gas powered plants and we invest in building Molten Salt Nuclear reactors instead. Less pollution is the goal, not banning coal.

You have to ban the oil all together.

Again however, I don't want to ban anything, I just want to migrate over to electric powered cars, by investing heavily in nuclear power.

General public are not convinced. I am not even convinced before I can carefully examine the data.

Well, that's the whole point of us having this discussion as I see it. I'd like you to take a careful look at all the data and make an informed decision. I'd also like you to check out molten salt reactor designs since they are much safer than the designs that are currently in use. The ones in use today were created to support a bomb making infrastructure, they aren't the safest type of reactor.

As I said in my first reply to this thread, now a day, everything kills. You can hardly tell which one has a bigger bullet.

If you look at the statistics, fossil fuel kills more people per kilowatt hour than nuclear energy.

I would say, just use 1/10 or even 1/100 of the money than the cost for whatever type of nuclear plant, we can make the coal burning safely everywhere in the world. Yes, we are not even investing in doing that. That is why I say the burning of coal is unstoppable. We just have to do our best and to live with it.

That 1/10th figure that you're talking about is only true if you completely and utterly ignore the cost of pollution in terms of lives lost, and hospital costs associated with lung disease, etc. Once you factor in the *real* costs in terms of human life, and health care implications, nuclear power is actually considerably cheaper over the long haul. Even the current designs are safer than coal, and cheaper than coal when you factor in the human costs, and Molten Salt reactors will be much safer than current designs.

We're still using designs from the 1950's-70's which were selected based not upon safety concerns, but based upon our desire to enrich Uranium form use in nuclear weapons. The molten salt reactors simply drain and shut down by themselves in the event of a complete power failure. Nothing goes 'boom" like we saw at Fukushima.

 

[Michael]

So, what are you going to do? Are you going to switch to an E-car? I won't. And I will continue to burn coal for my BBQ.

I will switch over to an electric car when they become price competitive. They're getting closer, but we're still not there yet. I'll probably always use my BBQ and I happen to prefer coals over gas too.

Once we can produce electricity at cheaper rates, and once the battery technology in electric cars improves a bit, the electric car will become price competitive with gas powered vehicles over the long haul. Making them more affordable and improving the battery technology will be the key to greater acceptance by the public. Right now the technology is still pretty young, and there's a lot of room for improvement. In the mean time we can and should be replacing older, heavily polluting plants with nuclear technology. That alone would start to put a dent in our pollution problems while we wait for the auto industry to build better electric vehicles.

 

[KWCrazy]

People have died from air pollution every single day of those 17 years however. Do you simply not care about them?

It's not that I don't care about them, it's that I'm not buying the snake oil you're selling. From the mid fifteen hundreds until the mid 1800's the average life expectancy was around 40. With the advent of the industrial revolution and all this toxic man made pollution the average life expectancy has about doubled. You are simply regurgitating leftist propaganda from sources like the WHO. Here's what they say:
Outdoor air pollution-caused deaths – breakdown by disease:

• 40% – ischaemic heart disease;
• 40% – stroke;
• 11% – chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD);
• 6% - lung cancer; and
• 3% – acute lower respiratory infections in children.

There are two problems with this. 1. None of these are caused by low ambient air quality and 2. All of these people would have died in a sanitary environment with highly filtered air. The average American can expect to live 79 years, while people in the most polluted country in the world; China; live 75. In the fresh, clean air of Fiji people live to the ripe old age of 70 and in the un-industrialized, undeveloped and unpolluted utopia of Angola natives average an incredible 38 year life expectancy.

Your argument is invalid.
Your validation is bogus.
Your conclusions are wrong.
Your sources are biased.
Your knowledge of the coal industry is non-existent.

Ever been to a re-claimed strip mine? I have. Ever been to an active mine? I have. Know any miners? I do. Know any mine inspectors? I do. Know any mine owners? I did, but he sold it. I know how important the coal industry is to this country and the uninformed, poorly educated liberal mouthpieces passing off anti-capitalist propaganda as hard data is rather distressing to those of us who know better.

 

[Michael]

It's not that I don't care about them, it's that I'm not buying the snake oil you're selling.

You prefer the snake oil that the fossil fuel industry is selling?

From the mid fifteen hundreds until the mid 1800's the average life expectancy was around 40. With the advent of the industrial revolution and all this toxic man made pollution the average life expectancy has about doubled.

The extended life has more to do with modern medicine and better food distribution more than anything else. That has nothing to do with the diseases that are caused by pollution. The number of deaths by fossil fuels would be far worse in fact were it not for modern medicine.

You are simply regurgitating leftist propaganda from sources like the WHO.

FYI, no. I've formed these opinions over many years from many resources, not just "WHO propaganda", or fossil corporation propaganda either.

Here's what they say:

Outdoor air pollution-caused deaths – breakdown by disease:

• 40% – ischaemic heart disease;
• 40% – stroke;
• 11% – chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD);
• 6% - lung cancer; and
• 3% – acute lower respiratory infections in children.

There are two problems with this. 1. None of these are caused by low ambient air quality

According to who? You? Certainly that's not true according to them nor any scientific study. The lung cancer statistic is almost certainly related to ambient air quality. Why do you figure they made the power companies clean up their act in Pittsburgh anyway?

and 2. All of these people would have died in a sanitary environment with highly filtered air.

How do you know they would even have contracted lung cancer, or suffered a stroke in highly filtered air? You seem to be making up these claims in your own head as far as I can tell. Source please....

The average American can expect to live 79 years, while people in the most polluted country in the world; China; live 75.

So why would you give up 4 years of you life just so you can breath polluted air?

In the fresh, clean air of Fiji people live to the ripe old age of 70 and in the un-industrialized, undeveloped and unpolluted utopia of Angola natives average an incredible 38 year life expectancy.

You're mixing and matching various factors and lumping them into weird categories of your own creation at this point. There are many factors that influence average age. Pollution is simply *one* of them, but it is *one of them*!

Your argument is invalid.

According to whom? You? You haven't even cited a resource outside of yourself to this point in our conversation, so all have to work with are your personal claims. How about citing something outside of yourself as a reference?

Your validation is bogus.
Your conclusions are wrong.
Your sources are biased.
Your knowledge of the coal industry is non-existent.

None of those things are true, and you seem to be your own biased source as far as I can tell. Apparently you're a self proclaimed/appointed mind reader too with respect to my knowledge of the coal industry, and not a very good one at that.

Ever been to a re-claimed strip mine? I have.

Actually yes. Ever been to one just left as it was when the company went bankrupt?

Ever been to an active mine? I have. Know any miners? I do.

I can't say I know anyone actively doing mining these days, but I have known some folks in my past. So what? What great words of wisdom did they impart to you anyway?

Know any mine inspectors? I do. Know any mine owners? I did, but he sold it. I know how important the coal industry is to this country and the uninformed, poorly educated liberal mouthpieces passing off anti-capitalist propaganda as hard data is rather distressing to those of us who know better.

Er, what exactly do you "know"? So far all your opinions seem to come from yourself and a few of your friends. That's not exactly 'scientific research", nor is it a belief that is based upon sound science.

 

[juvenissun]

Let me be clear that I'm not proposing that we ban coal or anything else. I'm advocating that we simply stop building coal and gas powered plants and we invest in building Molten Salt Nuclear reactors instead. Less pollution is the goal, not banning coal.
Again however, I don't want to ban anything, I just want to migrate over to electric powered cars, by investing heavily in nuclear power.
Well, that's the whole point of us having this discussion as I see it. I'd like you to take a careful look at all the data and make an informed decision. I'd also like you to check out molten salt reactor designs since they are much safer than the designs that are currently in use. The ones in use today were created to support a bomb making infrastructure, they aren't the safest type of reactor.

If you look at the statistics, fossil fuel kills more people per kilowatt hour than nuclear energy.

I kind of trust you on the molten salt reactor since I know zero about it.

But I do not trust the coal casualty statistics. There are other pollutants equally bad or worse than coal products. And I am not sure that people affected by coal pollution are eventually died of coal pollution. No statistics can convince me on that.

Just like you do not try to ban the coal. I don't either insist using the coal. I am just saying, there are so many people in the world. Cheap energy from coal IS going to be used regardless. One thing we could do is to use it in a clean way. The cost will become high. But that is economy. If the cost of using coal becomes higher than using other energy, then the use of coal will naturally slow down.

 

[juvenissun]

I will switch over to an electric car when they become price competitive. They're getting closer, but we're still not there yet. I'll probably always use my BBQ and I happen to prefer coals over gas too.

Once we can produce electricity at cheaper rates, and once the battery technology in electric cars improves a bit, the electric car will become price competitive with gas powered vehicles over the long haul. Making them more affordable and improving the battery technology will be the key to greater acceptance by the public. Right now the technology is still pretty young, and there's a lot of room for improvement. In the mean time we can and should be replacing older, heavily polluting plants with nuclear technology. That alone would start to put a dent in our pollution problems while we wait for the auto industry to build better electric vehicles.

We have an agreement.

Until alternative energy is able to catch up on price and on convenience, do not expect the use of fossil fuels will slow down. This is the situation in US. It is the same situation in China and in India.

For example, I am seriously consider to install some solar panels at home. This is so simply because the electricity cost is getting significantly high.

 

[KWCrazy]

You prefer the snake oil that the fossil fuel industry is selling?

I quoted the World Health Organization.
My experience with leftist sources is that they are agenda driven liars. Blaming the coal industry for lung cancer when the most likely cause is tobacco use is extremely dishonest. Blaming pollution for diseases which cannot be isolated to heavily polluted areas is another dishonest tactic. Why not just blame peanut butter, since EVERYONE who has ever eaten peanut butter has died within the next 100 years?

The extended life has more to do with modern medicine and better food distribution more than anything else.

How can that be if all those deaths are related to fossil fuels? Hospitals use electricity to keep people alive, and that electricity comes largely from coal. All the medicine in the world can't clean the air, and you're saying dirty air is the reason people are dying.

That has nothing to do with the diseases that are caused by pollution.

Please prove to me conclusively that pollution alone has killed anyone. If you were right, then EVERYONE who lived near a coal plant would be dying. I know of people in their 80's who have been around coal plants all their life without dying. There is absolutely no cause and effect relationship between coal use and premature death. If there were, nobody in Beijing would live past 30.

I've formed these opinions over many years from many resources,

Ever been to a coal plant so you knew what you were talking about? More pollution is generated by factories making things you use in your everyday life than burning power plants.

According to who?

How about the CDC?
The most important thing you can do to lower your lung cancer risk is to quit smoking and avoid secondhand smoke.
The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon, a naturally occurring gas that comes from rocks and dirt and can get trapped in houses and buildings.
source

Rather than than banning coal, perhaps we should ban houses. Maybe if we live in the forests with the deer we'll all live longer.

How do you know they would even have contracted lung cancer, or suffered a stroke in highly filtered air?

Simple. We don't get out of this world alive. Sooner or later we all die. Your basement is more likely to kill you than a coal plant next door. Welcome to the real world.

So why would you give up 4 years of you life just so you can breath polluted air?

I'm not moving to China. However, I see you didn't address the fact that they still live 75 years; longer than they live in clean, safe Fiji.

You're mixing and matching various factors and lumping them into weird categories of your own creation at this point.

Awww, you beat me to it! Even the crazed leftists can't agree with you that coal consumption is a leading cause of death.

Ever been to one just left as it was when the company went bankrupt?

No, but with the lunatics in charge I'm sure there are more of them than ever.

I can't say I know anyone actively doing mining these days, but I have known some folks in my past.

This is what a coal plant looks like in full operation. Notice that we see steam, not black smoke, billowing from the stacks.

Notice the green leaves on the trees? An acid rich pollutant laced emission would leave them barren or discolored. This plant feeds off the green river and is upstream of several municipal water systems which have safe drinking water. This is hardly what we see in China. We all breath the same air. Those in the coal industry care about leaving a better life for their children. All leftists want to do is destroy American industry so our children can be dependent on government.

Er, what exactly do you "know"?

I know that I'm right, you're wrong, and your sources are hysterical leftists.

 

[Michael]

I kind of trust you on the molten salt reactor since I know zero about it.

Since we were heavily invested in building bombs based on Uranium/Plutonium when building the first generation of reactors, the current reactors in use were favored over Thorium based molten salt reactor designs. The major differences between the two technologies is that current designs require power to keep them cool and they operate at much higher pressures and use water which can release hydrogen and blow up. If the power goes out, they have the nasty tendency to heat up, release hydrogen, and blow up as we saw in Fukushima.

The Thorium reactors are better suited and are more efficient at burning nuclear materials, but their real advantage is that in the event of a power failure, the heated salt simply melts through a drain plug, and the liquid salt is dumped into a holding tank with neutron absorbing material, where it simply cools off and turns into a a solid again. You can even reheat the salt and reuse it once the power comes back on. Nothing goes super critical during power failures in that design. It's therefore much safer on that issue alone. Because it's using salt rather than water, it doesn't release hydrogen, and it also operates at far lower pressures. It doesn't require a huge containment structure to hold the steam in the event of failure.

But I do not trust the coal casualty statistics. There are other pollutants equally bad or worse than coal products. And I am not sure that people affected by coal pollution are eventually died of coal pollution. No statistics can convince me on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog

I'm not actually just picking on coal based power plants by the way. It also applies to fossil fuels in general, our use of gasoline in cars, etc. Some events have just been so over the top that there was no way to deny the impact of smog on human health. Pittsburgh was really ground zero in the US over the pollution from power plant problem.

Just like you do not try to ban the coal. I don't either insist using the coal. I am just saying, there are so many people in the world. Cheap energy from coal IS going to be used regardless. One thing we could do is to use it in a clean way. The cost will become high. But that is economy. If the cost of using coal becomes higher than using other energy, then the use of coal will naturally slow down.

I agree with that actually. I'm also just noting that there is a human cost associated with dumping pollution into the air that we breath. Even if the statistics are somewhat skewed, there's no denying that air pollution is hazardous to one's health, and those health care costs have to be considered when looking at the actual cost of any power plant. I'm sure that the figures might me a tad skewed in some ways, but the number of fossil fuel pollution related fatalities in one year far exceeds the deaths from nuclear power plants over the whole history of nuclear power.

 

[Michael]

I quoted the World Health Organization.

Ya, but then you took their figures and simply tossed in your own opinions in there, none of which are supported by any external studies.

My experience with leftist sources is that they are agenda driven liars.

My experience with big business and fossil fuel companies is that they tend to put profit ahead of human safety. Your use of the term 'liars' is inappropriate IMO. The same could be said for the CEO's of those fossil fuel companies that keep denying the problem.

Blaming the coal industry for lung cancer when the most likely cause is tobacco use is extremely dishonest. Blaming pollution for diseases which cannot be isolated to heavily polluted areas is another dishonest tactic. Why not just blame peanut butter, since EVERYONE who has ever eaten peanut butter has died within the next 100 years?

From my perspective it's dishonest to pretend that the pollution from coal and other fossil fuel plants has no harmful effect on humans. The scientific evidence says otherwise.

How can that be if all those deaths are related to fossil fuels?

Because they all cause air pollution, which then gets breathed into people's lungs and can lead to cancer and other serious illnesses. Even when they work "as advertised" they're pumping pollution into the atmosphere. Compare and contrast that with Nuclear energy that only put pollution into the air if it *fails* to work as advertised.

Hospitals use electricity to keep people alive, and that electricity comes largely from coal.

It could just as easily come from nuclear energy or renewable energy sources too. In that case however, you wouldn't have so many folks needing the hospital in the first place.

All the medicine in the world can't clean the air, and you're saying dirty air is the reason people are dying.

Not just me, the whole scientific community agrees on that point.

Please prove to me conclusively that pollution alone has killed anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog

If you were right, then EVERYONE who lived near a coal plant would be dying.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2010/12/13/Clusters-of-death/stories/201012130261

No, that's not how it really works in the actual world. Just because someone is exposed to harmful chemicals, it doesn't *always* lead to health problems. Some people are simply more vulnerable, perhaps due to DNA, pollution exposure intensity, or other specific factors. You and I could live next to each other downwind from a coal plant, and my kids could seem perfectly fine. Meanwhile your children might develop health problems. If however neither of us lived downwind and were not exposed to those same toxic chemicsl, your kids would have been just fine too.

I know of people in their 80's who have been around coal plants all their life without dying. There is absolutely no cause and effect relationship between coal use and premature death. If there were, nobody in Beijing would live past 30.

Your understanding of the issue isn't A) scientific in the least because not everyone dies from exposure, and B) not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever.