EPA's New Coal Pollution Rules: More Death, More Asthma

yeshuaslavejeff · May 21, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year

#prolife
#maga (Make Asthma Great Again)

It looks like the agenda of pharmakeia is thus furthered - more death, more asthma, more profits, more control.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 21, 2019

theQuincunx5 said:
Ya know, speaking as one who got his doctorate in coal chemistry I actually had fantasies decades ago of working in coal or petroleum. But then I wound up in other jobs and did other things with my life. I learned how incredibly horrible coal is as a fuel source. Yet I still find coal fascinating.

I wonder what it is like to be the kind of people who cannot survive outside of their sole passion. Imagine what it must be like to be the CEO of a major coal company and be unable to do anything else with your life such that you would fight tooth and nail to ensure America is one of the most regressive environmental forces on earth, working overtime to ensure the future is really, really grim for millions of people.

Just because you couldn't possibly understand how to do ANYTHING else with your miserable single-issue brain.

Sad.

Amazing foresight (I think it's called) - seeing what is coming from current choices (of industry).

"Grim for millions" - even for billions of people. No problem at all for those serving money.

JackRT · May 21, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
It looks like the agenda of pharmakeia is thus furthered - more death, more asthma, more profits, more control.

Decades of hard work by thousands of people and supported by tens of millions more is being set back by the agenda of a single ignoramus in the seat of power.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 21, 2019

JackRT said:
Decades of hard work by thousands of people and supported by tens of millions more is being set back by the agenda of a single ignoramus in the seat of power.

Really? The one in power might be doing the will of the beast of the earth,
the
"prince of the power of the air" that all the sons of disobedience serve (Ephesians 2).

Not just one person, but the whole world.

variant · May 21, 2019

JackRT said:
Decades of hard work by thousands of people and supported by tens of millions more is being set back by the agenda of a single ignoramus in the seat of power.

Oh he's not alone, he has plenty of ignorant followers too.

USincognito · May 21, 2019

Make Americans Gasp Again

Nithavela · May 22, 2019

1400 additional deaths per year?

That's it? I've had such high hopes for this administration and they can't even reach a million?

Aryeh Jay · May 22, 2019

Outlawing abortion will make up for the deaths.

Andrew77 · May 22, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
1,400 dead Americans was too great a price to pay, so.... the EPA wants to change the formula used to calculate air pollution deaths to make them go away. On paper, anyway.

The different method for evaluating health impacts, according to the [failing New York Times], is notable "because it discards more than a decade of peer-reviewed EPA methods and relies on unfounded medical assumptions."

So name one clear unambigous air pollution death due to the new rule, or name one air pollution death that was prevented due to the old rules?

See, here's the problem. You looking at one set of information and calling it 'founded medical assumptions' and looking at another set of information and calling it 'unfounded medical assumptions'.

Andrew77 · May 22, 2019

Nithavela said:
1400 additional deaths per year?

That's it? I've had such high hopes for this administration and they can't even reach a million?

Want to calculate the millions of people whose lives are saved by energy that coal provides?

essentialsaltes · May 22, 2019

Andrew77 said:
See, here's the problem. You looking at one set of information and calling it 'founded medical assumptions' and looking at another set of information and calling it 'unfounded medical assumptions'.

There are peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that there are "negative health effects well below the 12-microgram standard."

That's what we call founded on reliable evidence.

People have likened the air quality standards to a speed limit. Just because we set a safety limit at 65 mph doesn't mean there are no vehicular deaths at speeds below that. This new method of death accounting is tantamount to making that assumption. It is not just unfounded, it is contradicted by evidence.

Nithavela · May 22, 2019

Andrew77 said:
Want to calculate the millions of people whose lives are saved by energy that coal provides?

I'd rather not, that would only make me depressed.

Andrew77 · May 23, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
There are peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that there are "negative health effects well below the 12-microgram standard."

That's what we call founded on reliable evidence.

People have likened the air quality standards to a speed limit. Just because we set a safety limit at 65 mph doesn't mean there are no vehicular deaths at speeds below that. This new method of death accounting is tantamount to making that assumption. It is not just unfounded, it is contradicted by evidence.

Well of course there are negative health effects to pollution. The problem is, zero pollution can only be achieved by not having power. Well if we commit suicide, and thus can shut off all the power plants, then we can achieve zero pollution and thus zero health effects.

At some point we have to accept that human existence causes pollution. We can fight over where the line should be drawn, which is the question.

How many people have died because of air pollution? Not how many died according to some estimate based on mathematical formulas. How many people died, and you can say it wasn't because they were smoking pot, or eating McDonald's, or watching too much TV.

How many people can you say "John Doe here died from coal power plants"?

And the answer is zero.

At best you can say people who had a pre-existing condition, had those conditions aggravated by low levels of pollution.

So what we're talking about is simply assumption. You are assuming such and such a number of people died from such and such pollution.

You can't point to an actual count of the specific number of people with a toe tag "Cause: Coal power plant".

And this is why some people are getting bent about how the EPA calculates these fictional numbers of deaths. Because they are using this fiction to push an agenda.

essentialsaltes · May 23, 2019

Andrew77 said:
Well of course there are negative health effects to pollution.

At some point we have to accept that human existence causes pollution.

Then why do you support the Trump Administration trying to ignore these facts, rather than accept these facts?

JackRT · May 23, 2019

Andrew77 said:
Well of course there are negative health effects to pollution. The problem is, zero pollution can only be achieved by not having power. Well if we commit suicide, and thus can shut off all the power plants, then we can achieve zero pollution and thus zero health effects.

At some point we have to accept that human existence causes pollution. We can fight over where the line should be drawn, which is the question.

How many people have died because of air pollution? Not how many died according to some estimate based on mathematical formulas. How many people died, and you can say it wasn't because they were smoking pot, or eating McDonald's, or watching too much TV.

How many people can you say "John Doe here died from coal power plants"?

And the answer is zero.

At best you can say people who had a pre-existing condition, had those conditions aggravated by low levels of pollution.

So what we're talking about is simply assumption. You are assuming such and such a number of people died from such and such pollution.

You can't point to an actual count of the specific number of people with a toe tag "Cause: Coal power plant".

And this is why some people are getting bent about how the EPA calculates these fictional numbers of deaths. Because they are using this fiction to push an agenda.

Statistics deals with populations of individuals and can say nothing about whether or not John Doe died of black lung disease because he was a long term coal miner. What statistics can do is say is something like:

"We have studied the health of 10,000 long term coal and have found that 15% suffer from black lung disease and we have studied the health of 10,000 long term farmers who live nearby and have found that 0.8% suffer from black lung disease. Coal mining is implicated in the incidence of the disease and it is likely that that John Doe got it from mining coal but we can't say for a certainty."

Andrew77 · May 23, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
Then why do you support the Trump Administration trying to ignore these facts, rather than accept these facts?

Two reasons.

There is no enumerated authority given in the constitution for the EPA. The EPA is unconstitutional, and should not exist.

I believe that EPA regulations are in fact, too strict, and that each state has the right under the constitution, to regulate their own state.

Pommer · May 23, 2019

Andrew77 said:
Two reasons.

There is no enumerated authority given in the constitution for the EPA. The EPA is unconstitutional, and should not exist.

I believe that EPA regulations are in fact, too strict, and that each state has the right under the constitution, to regulate their own state.

Oh? How’s that going to work?
If Pennsylvania allowed steelmakers to pollute the Ohio, wouldn’t that also affect people in the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and the ones bordering the Mississippi River?

You can mandate regulations that are stricter than the EPA, but not looser.

rambot · May 23, 2019

Andrew77 said:
So name one clear unambigous air pollution death due to the new rule, or name one air pollution death that was prevented due to the old rules?

See, here's the problem. You looking at one set of information and calling it 'founded medical assumptions' and looking at another set of information and calling it 'unfounded medical assumptions'.

See, HERE'S the problem. When science has made strong links between air quality and cancer rates (some of this research done by coal companies themselves), people who think they are smarter than doctors, researchers, all manner of statisticians and researchers who've invested 10s of thousands of hours on report after report, feel that they have this "one argument" that nobody has EVER thought of that has the power to take down all that work and millions in funding. They feel that THEY are not convinced. To be fair they have done absolutely no intellectual leg work to be kept up to date on the science behind the research. They have made no effort to learn about that which they disagree so vehemently on. They demand answers to questions like a child advising and inquiring about their parents' finances.

It's hubris if ever it's been seen.

essentialsaltes · May 23, 2019

Andrew77 said:
There is no enumerated authority given in the constitution for the EPA. The EPA is unconstitutional, and should not exist.

See, you should have started with that, rather than trying to pretend you were concerned about the scientific facts.

super animator · May 23, 2019

Fun fact, coal plants are being closed down under trump single term more then Obama entire presidency.

EPA's New Coal Pollution Rules: More Death, More Asthma

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Happy Cat

a post by Alan Smithee

our world is happy and mundane

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

The walking accident

The walking accident

Stranger in a Strange Land

our world is happy and mundane

The walking accident

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

The walking accident

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Senior Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Dreamer

Similar threads