Dangerous fossil fuel wastes (particulates) cause lung cancer. Citizens couldn't care less.

[NNadir]

A great many people labor under the illution that dangerous fossil fuels are relatively harmless.

The position is, of course, morally, intellectually suspect of course, but you will seldom hear of one person who ignores dangerous fossil fuels and dangerous fossil fuel waste who gives a rat's ass.

You will of course, see the type of appeals to ignorance from people who pretend to give a rat's ass about cancer from energy but what you will not see is any attempt by them to point up the dangers posed by dangerous fossil fuels.

Why?

Because they couldn't care less.

Recently our attention was directed here to a claim that leukemia rates were higher around nuclear power plants. One study out of many thousands of studies on the subject was selected, because the poster couldn't care less whether there were confounding factors like say, gasoline, or other dangerous fossil fuels in the area.

In fact, it turns out that dangerous fossil fuel waste, besides causing heart disease and tiny other things like say, the total destruction of agricultural land on a continental scale, also causes cancer, lots of cancer it turns out.

In fact, living next to a dangerous fossil fuel plant is like well, smoking cigarettes.

Surprised?

No?

Here is a news story on the subject:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2002/2002-03-06-07.asp

Whether or not you could care less, here's an excerpt:

The study assesses the impact of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers, called fine particulate matter, in cities across the United States. It analyzes data from some 500,000 adults who were followed from 1982 to 1998 as part of an ongoing cancer study.
The data, which included cause of death, were linked to air pollution levels for cities nationwide using advanced statistical modeling. The researchers controlled for individual risk factors such as age, smoking status, body mass and diet, as well as for regional differences among the study populations.

The number of deaths from lung cancer increases by eight percent for every 10 micrograms of fine particulate matter per cubic meter, the researchers found. Larger particles and gaseous pollutants were generally not as associated with higher number of deaths.

"The increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease from air pollution was clearly far less than the risks associated with active cigarette smoking," said Arden Pope, professor of economics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, the study's co-leader. "However, we found that the risk of dying from lung cancer as well as heart disease in the most polluted cities was comparable to the risk associated with nonsmokers being exposed to second hand smoke over a long period of time."

The major source of soot particles is coal burning, which accounts for 120 exajoules of energy.

The world output of renewable energy (other than hydro) amounts to 2 exajoules, of which the vast majority is burning things, including trash.

In fact, many people will come here and look you straight in the eye and tell you that their pet fantasies about wind and solar will stop coal. This is nonsense. Decades of such talk has lead only to more coal plants. Thus such representations are merely forms of denial that pepetuate the dangerous fossil fuel industry.

The actual scale of US energy production is given here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

We can see that public stupidity and ignornance has caused an increase in coal burning but you will not hear one person who has been saying for decades that wind and solar power would save us who gives a rat's ass.

They couldn't care less.



In fact, almost 40% of the "renewable" energy generated in the United States in the twelve month period ending in April of 2007 was waste burning:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_1_a.xls

(28% of the tiny renewable energy business came from wind, and tiny among the tiny was solar with 0.5% of the renewable energy profile. The balance was geothermal.)

16% was wood burning, which also produces cancer causing particulates.

Not one of the people who pretend to care about cancer and energy could care less about these sources of particulates. They don't count.


Here is what the article says:

[AndyTiedye]

1. You Have NO Basis For Claiming That

Just because we don't like YOUR "solution", you say we "couldn't care less" about hydrocarbon pollution.

We prefer conservation and alternative, renewable, energy sources.

[Nihil]

2. Speaking for myself here (not nnadir)

> You Have NO Basis For Claiming That
>
> Just because we don't like YOUR "solution", you say we "couldn't care less"
> about hydrocarbon pollution.
>
> We prefer conservation and alternative, renewable, energy sources.

The impression given by most (though not all) anti-nuclear-power posters
is that pollution from coal-fired power stations is an unfortunate but
necessary evil that we have to put up with until the alternative/renewable
generation systems are up to speed. (By "up to speed" I mean "up to the
point where they are making major inroads into power generation currently
being done by fossil fuels" rather than simply "working technology".)

This impression (right or wrong) is strongly reinforced by the contrasting
standards applied to new power stations: if "nuclear" then "ridiculously
high", if "anything else" then "it doesn't matter".

The opposition to a new nuclear power station is expected these days
but why is there little (if any) concern about the new coal-fired power
stations being constructed in the meantime?
How many coal-fired sites have protesters outside the front gate?
How many studies are done into the cancer rates downwind of coal power
stations? Of the impact of fly-ash on food crops grown in that region?

There is a DEFINITE double standard between the treatment of nuclear and
fossil-fuel power generation and, unfortunately, many people in the
renewable energy camp are seen to be tacitly supporting coal power simply
by the viciousness of their attack on nuclear and their stated desire to
prevent *any* nuclear growth despite the twin issues of increasing power
demand and slow uptake of alternatives.

I am pro-nuclear and pro-renewable but, before either, I am most definitely
pro-conservation, anti-overconsumption and anti-coal.

[NNadir]

3. Believe it or not, I could not agree more with your last statement.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Different Standards Because A Failure of a Nuke Can Release Lots of Deadly Radiation

Red indicates the extent of the radiation cloud on April 27, just after the accident in Chernobyl. Blue, indicates its almost worldwide distribution until the 6th of May.

If a coal-fired plant catches fire, it does not spew radiation all over the world.

(Edit: added the caption from the original page http://www.worldprocessor.com/53.htm)

[phantom power]

9. Is everybody else seeing a globe with purple spraypaint, or is it just me again?

[Systematic Chaos]

10. What... you don't see the message in that picture?

First, Prince has claimed sole ownership of half the northern hemisphere.

Second, it proves that coal soot contains absolutely no radioactivity!

Sheesh... I can't take you anywhere. :(

[Nihil]

13. You know what proves it was a nuclear event?

That line of radioactive cloud going down the 35 degree West line
so soon after the accident ... nothing natural could possibly produce
such a dramatic and tightly bound plume of radioactive fallout across
all those chaotic twisty wind things so it HAD to be a sign of the
EVIL of NUCLEAR POWER GONE WRONG!

[Nihil]

14. Newsflash ...

> If a coal-fired plant catches fire, it does not spew radiation
> all over the world.

Coal plants all over the world are designed to burn coal every day
and they DO spew radiation all over the world - each and every one
of them.

In other words, your greatest fear (a nuclear plant spreading radioactive
pollution over a wide area) has been happening daily for centuries, will
continue to happen for decades (at least) and is STILL used as a means to
prevent a less polluting, less dangerous form of power generation.

You think this makes sense?

More to the point, do you really think that it shows anti-nuclear people
understand the current situation with regard to radioactive pollution
(never mind the more boring particulate, nitrous & sulphurous aspects)?

[NNadir]

4. I absolutely have basis for that.

Not one of the antinukes on this website would dream of writing a post with the first sentence in the title of my thread.

As for your crapola last remark, you seem not to have noticed that the same appeal to wishful thinking is identical to remarks made with the same smug "we prefer" in 1990. In fact, the same remarks were made in 1975.

Is there some point where "we" are going to put up or shut up, or should we just wait through another 250 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide while you tell us about your noble intentions?

[AndyTiedye]

6. Calling my Post "Crapola" is a Pretty Sorry Excuse for an Argument

Renewables were a good idea in 1975 and 1990, and they are a good idea today.

Are you criticizing us for being consistant?

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Yes, they are a very good idea

Unfortunately, they not a very good method of generating 450 EJ a year, which is sort of what we need. Ideas don't make light-bulbs come on except in cartoons (and even then they're always filament bulbs, not CFLs :P).

[jpak]

5. I, for one, actually do give a flying fuck about the rat's ass

renewables rule...

:evilgrin:

[Nihil]

7. Acrobatic bestiality? Wow!

:crazy:

[Systematic Chaos]

11. And for his next act, ROLLING DONUTS!!

:freak:

[RestoreGore]

12. On yes, because I am against nuclear that automatically means I love coal

What bull. I happen to believe that neither coal or nuclear are any good for this planet. That is possible you know. But of course, you continue to believe otherwise in order to feed your arrogant hatred for anyone who doens't bow down to the nuclear god. And of course, don't mention all those nasty fossil fuels that are used to build nuclear power plants to begin with.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. You don't have to love it...

...I don't, for instance: I'm as leery of nuclear power as I am of large spiders, jellyfish and the Inland Revenue Department. But I also recognise it's the only damn thing we've got that's anywhere near to displacing fossil fuels in the next few decades.

I prefer hydro, and would like to see as much wind as can be can be backed up by hydro built: But there's nowhere near enough suitable places to drop the things. Solar is nice for peak, but it's a bit crap at night - and we don't have anything that stores enough energy, except pumped hydro. Things like vehicle to grid, flywheels and vanadium batteries are several orders of magnitude too small to run things like the Paris Metro, the street lights in London or the Prius production line at Toyota city, even if we build millions of units.

Now, 10 or 20 or 30 years down the line we might have something new and wonderful to play with, but by the time we've invented it, ironed out the bugs and produced enough of it to handle exajoules of power we'll be living on a dead rock with nothing but photographs of what we've lost.

Nuclear power is a very emotive subject, but try to put your emotions aside and look at the numbers. They're cold, heartless, and don't lie very well. There are numbers for the amount of fossil fuels need to produce a joule by coal, hydro and nuclear: numbers for how often the wind blows and the sun shines, and numbers how many people died when almost the entire contents of a reactor went up in smoke. There are also numbers for how much CO₂ we produce in a second, how acidic the ocean is getting, and long Melborne's water supply will last. There's even numbers - big numbers - for how many people are going to die if we don't act immediately. You won't like the numbers, but you don't have to: All that is required is, to understand them.

I know you are well aware that the planet's long term future is not looking too rosy at the moment. We have a choice: Go with what we've got now, or not.

[RestoreGore]

17. Nuclear is an old relic that has been around for decades and we still have global warming

I am amazed at those who would now use this climate crisis as an excuse to push nuclear on us when it hasn't done a damn thing to "save" our environment for all the decades it has already been around. It's time to move into the future, not rely on relics of the past...and that includes the relics in DC who are also pushing it for their benefactors.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. We have global warming because we didn't use *enough* nuclear

And yeah, I'm another ex-nuclear protester so I get to live with some of the blame. If every "developed" country had done what France did we'd still be in the shit, but we'd be talking about what we could do in the next 10 years, not watching the corpses pile up in another European heatwave.

But your right about moving into the future. Unfortunately, it's a future that scares the shit out out me.

[RestoreGore]

22. No, we have global warming because politicians are assholes

And people are too damned complacent to give a damn regardless of the source of the power. Nuclear has been around for DECADES and has done absolutely nothing in my opinion to do anything but make people richer and poison our waterways, and I will fight it tooth and nail as I do coal plants and any other ource that relegates us to the past.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. The first point we can agree on. :) nt

[NNadir]

20. How unsurprising it is that you use circular reasoning and are unfamiliar with energy output.

You sat around opposing nuclear energy your whole life, and then you complain that it did "nothing."

It is clear that you have no idea what an exajoule is, or what the contribution of various forms of energy to the world portfolio of energy is.

Without nuclear power's contribution, it is easy to show that CO₂ concentration would be 5 ppm higher.

You couldn't care less.

The increase in nuclear energy production over the last decade and a half - while you've been mindlessly whining about it with no insight to what it costs - produces more energy than the total amount of energy ever produced by your fantasies (wind, solar, geothermal, garbage burning blah blah blah) as ever achieved combined.

It is clear that you can't be antinuclear unless you can't understand numbers, but nevertheless here they are:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

Still clueless?

You are?

Why am I not surprised?

And speaking of things about which you couldn't care less, here's the output of carbon dioxide:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

[RestoreGore]

21. Yes, Yes, you are so much smarter than me! Make you feel better?

Well, this I do know, WATER POLLUTION is much higher due in part to nuclear. But I guess you couldn't care less. Throw all the numbers at people you want from "government" sources that push it anyway, but it is the MORAL question behind this that concerns me. But again, I guess you couldn't care less because you are so busy here trying to show off.

[HamdenRice]

19. The Clean Air Act

I would not agree that the public "couldn't care less" about hydro carbon pollution. We certainly did care enough to win passage of the Clean Air Act. During Democratic and moderate Republican administrations, Congress and the various administrations have used the CAA to reduce pollution emanating from hydrocarbon power plants. The standards for emission have generally become more and more stringent -- except when nutcases like Bush occupy the presidency. This gives the public the idea -- and a not outrageous idea -- that hydrocarbon pollution is a technical problem that is slowly being solved.

By contrast, the public fears that nuclear power has several unsolveable technical problems -- from where to store the waste for thousands of years, to what to do in the case of an accident.

Only in the last ten years or so has the public realized that even if all particulate, sulfurous and other non-CO2 pollution is eliminated from coal and gas fired plants, we will still have the problem of CO2 greenhouse gases. But I don't think the public doesn't care at all about these issues.