Rob Plant + 2,756 RP June 12 17 hours ago, Ecocharger said: If you think that fossil fuels are related to health problems, show some evidence. There needs to be a demonstration that health problems have declined in correlation to the drastic decline in fossil fuel related particulates. Over to you, Notsonice beat me to it with his numerous links that you werent able to argue against. Hopefully even the incredibly slow ones on here can figure it out now. Thanks Notsonice for posting the facts! 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 12 23 hours ago, notsonice said: lithium and cobalt mining are serious health issues....yep all mining can create health issues Coal is King...I will post my evidence....you post yours..... Coal Power Impacts Union of Concerned Scientists https://www.ucsusa.org › resources › coal-power-impacts Nov 15, 2017 — Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global ... Killer Coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal? Climate Council https://www.climatecouncil.org.au › News May 22, 2023 — Along with adding to greenhouse gas pollution, burning coal emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land, severely ... How Coal and Gas Damages Your Health Sierra Club https://coal.sierraclub.org › the-problem › how-coal-and-... Burning coal releases toxic mercury that rains down into rivers and streams. This poison then accumulates in the food chain, eventually making its way into our ... Your links are losers stuck in the 1970's with zero smog emissions controls on the exhaust... Brilliant! Here is one such Travesty:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6801683/ "Exposed" group are a bunch of chimney smokers(Greater than 50%) who sit on their ass and their "control" group ... are not(25%) and you will ALSO note what they did NOT ask these people... what is your BMI... Ya don't say, fat asses who chimney smoke cigarettes for more than 10 years have shortness of breath and are in poor health. WOWS!!!! Your so called "links" are the boilerplate stupidity which never ask, what level of PM2.5 makes no difference and how FAT are the people they are supposedly "testing"? Concrete workers for instance are around high PM2.5 all day long(and fly ash which supposedly is bad bad bad according to you as it is from COAL... and yet their cancer rates are NOT high yet they are chain chimney smokers(cancers high from cigarattes). Why? They aren't FAT ASSES sitting on their FAT ASSES DOING NOTHING! What do concrete workers suffer from? Smokers lung because they are chimney smokers so they have higher lip, lung cancers than everyone else, but because they aren't fat asses who do not work, all the other cancers are actually LOWER than the average population. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-016-1167-x https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/264 Japan(oldest nation on earth is pretty damned high last I checked)... oh right, they are also smokers, but they aren't FAT 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 12 (edited) 5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Your links are losers stuck in the 1970's with zero smog emissions controls on the exhaust... Brilliant! Here is one such Travesty:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6801683/ "Exposed" group are a bunch of chimney smokers(Greater than 50%) who sit on their ass and their "control" group ... are not(25%) and you will ALSO note what they did NOT ask these people... what is your BMI... Ya don't say, fat asses who chimney smoke cigarettes for more than 10 years have shortness of breath and are in poor health. WOWS!!!! Your so called "links" are the boilerplate stupidity which never ask, what level of PM2.5 makes no difference and how FAT are the people they are supposedly "testing"? Concrete workers for instance are around high PM2.5 all day long(and fly ash which supposedly is bad bad bad according to you as it is from COAL... and yet their cancer rates are NOT high yet they are chain chimney smokers(cancers high from cigarattes). Why? They aren't FAT ASSES sitting on their FAT ASSES DOING NOTHING! What do concrete workers suffer from? Smokers lung because they are chimney smokers so they have higher lip, lung cancers than everyone else, but because they aren't fat asses who do not work, all the other cancers are actually LOWER than the average population. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-016-1167-x https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/264 Japan(oldest nation on earth is pretty damned high last I checked)... oh right, they are also smokers, but they aren't FAT Your so called "links" are the boilerplate stupidity which never ask off your meds again....... Tailings pond posted the links not me maybe you have been breathing in crappy air again and now your ability to read has been impacted..... try to respond to the right posts...........dumbass Edited June 12 by notsonice 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE June 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Your so called "links" are the boilerplate stupidity which never ask, what level of PM2.5 makes no difference and how FAT are the people they are supposedly "testing"? Concrete workers for instance are around high PM2.5 all day long(and fly ash which supposedly is bad bad bad according to you as it is from COAL... and yet their cancer rates are NOT high yet they are chain chimney smokers(cancers high from cigarattes). Why? They aren't FAT ASSES sitting on their FAT ASSES DOING NOTHING! What do concrete workers suffer from? Smokers lung because they are chimney smokers so they have higher lip, lung cancers than everyone else, but because they aren't fat asses who do not work, all the other cancers are actually LOWER than the average population. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-016-1167-x https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/264 Japan(oldest nation on earth is pretty damned high last I checked)... oh right, they are also smokers, but they aren't FAT There is plenty of evidence that PM 2.5 is bad for your health. Bringing up health problems related to obesity and inactivity is not relevant. People can have multiple risk factors or comorbidities, the primary risk factor or disease does not make the rest irrelevant. PM 2.5 exposure is bad. Having obesity is bad. Having obesity and PM 2.5 exposure is worst. Having cardiovascular disease makes the PM exposure even more harmful. If you assign PM exposure a mortality risk factor of 0.20, and obesity a risk factor of 0.30, the mortality risk factor for PM exposure with obesity will be greater than 0.30. Probably around 0.36 (square root of sum of squares method). As for smokers exposed to occupational PM who get lung cancer it is hard to say what caused the cancer, the cigs or the other sources of PM exposure. There is little doubt that breathing dirty air caused the problem, the question is whether the air pollution was voluntary or not. It's a big question as it effects employer liabilities; the employer will say it was from smoking, the family of the deceased will claim occupational exposure. Edited June 12 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 June 13 https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/white-house-equity-requirements-holding-back-ev-charging-station-construction-internal-docs-show/ 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE June 13 11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Here is one such Travesty:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6801683/ People who live in crappy coal mining towns are more likely to smoke. Not really surprising. Trades persons in general smoke more than office workers. The rest of that paper shows how bad coal is, thanks. FYI office workers are not "doing nothing" nor are they always fat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 13 14 hours ago, Ron Wagner said: https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/white-house-equity-requirements-holding-back-ev-charging-station-construction-internal-docs-show/ Personally,all those DEI racists fire all who administered it. Every single one of them Just start sweeping all these federal trash gutless administrators out, and do not replace them. Of course the problem are the immoral thieving trash who voted for these garbage politicians, so a bandaid on the festering wound helps no one really. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE June 13 Cool idea. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240610-how-the-concrete-in-your-house-could-be-turned-into-a-battery?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL June 14 On 6/11/2024 at 5:00 PM, TailingsPond said: You showed a little news bite. I showed real metrics. I challenge you plenty... more than I should bother. Heck, we politely call people like you "challenged" all the time. You seem to be memory challenged...I discussed in some detail the new climate science for which you had no reply. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL June 14 So now the issue is coming to the fore...the wild and ill-conceived war against CO2 is being exposed for the nonsense it is, without any substantial climate science support. This figures to be the most interesting election in decades, one which will expose the weak facade of how governments have attempted to twist science away from objective research into a political tool. This has happened before and it always came out clean in the end...that will happen now or later, but better now. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Trump-Criticizes-Bidens-Crazy-EV-Mandate-Pledges-Policy-Reversal.html 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL June 14 (edited) On 6/12/2024 at 5:55 AM, Rob Plant said: Notsonice beat me to it with his numerous links that you werent able to argue against. Hopefully even the incredibly slow ones on here can figure it out now. Thanks Notsonice for posting the facts! Rob, you seem to be confused again...I asked you to find some evidence that the reduction of particulates has brought with it a reduction in health issues...if there is no such evidence, then we must conclude that the health issues were not correlated with the particulate levels. That is simple enough for anyone to understand, you do not need a graduate training in statistics or experience in epidemiology, such as the current writer (ahem) has amassed. Edited June 14 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL June 14 22 hours ago, TailingsPond said: People who live in crappy coal mining towns are more likely to smoke. Not really surprising. Trades persons in general smoke more than office workers. The rest of that paper shows how bad coal is, thanks. FYI office workers are not "doing nothing" nor are they always fat. This makes it difficult to determine to what extent lung issues are related to the coal or to the smoking. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 June 14 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: This makes it difficult to determine to what extent lung issues are related to the coal or to the smoking. Black Lung disease is not a result of smoking. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: This makes it difficult to determine to what extent lung issues are related to the coal or to the smoking. you have no idea what you are talking about.............. You obviously have never worked in a coal mine.....or any other mine for that matter as your post shows your gross ignorance of mine related and especially coal mine related negative health effects..... Black lung is super easy to detect through testing.... The tests conducted before you start working in a coal mine...lung capacity and xrays...history of places you worked at an do you smoke.....baseline while your working (annual ) xray and lung capacity and if you are having any persistent coughs CAT scan... spots on your lung easy to see with xrays and CAT scans and your daily test......after your shift is over when you get out on the surface or in the showers you blow out your loogies one side at a time and you repeat until you have cleared out the coal (and some blood as the coal can cut open your air sacs in your lungs) and depending on your exposure over each shift ie related to how much Black loogies you blow out........pretty gross but you want the shit out of your nose, trachea and lungs......and if you stop working in a coal mine you can blow out black loogies for months to years. when you start getting bloody noses for no reason time to change jobs catch a cold while working in a coal mine and you will blow out a lot of coal (and blood) for the duration of your cold ....real gross you can wear your respirator religiously however you can not wear it 8 hours straight and you will get coal in your lungs.... the face miner gets the best respiration equipment.....buggy drivers........beltmen.....bullgang........you usually are not wearing your respirator but you are getting your fair share of coal dust in your lungs most guys working underground are non-smokers and it is real easy to determine the extent of lung issues related to coal Best way to avoid lung problems is 1) do not work in a coal mine 2) do not smoke 3) do not play with asbestos 4) do not drill in silica type rocks 5) do not breath in crappy polluted air (yeah car exhaust is crappy air) 6) do not work with hazardous chemicals or work in dusty environments I had so many lung tests over the years it is mind boggling....I am so happy I did not screw up my lungs from what I can tell and trust me I was not as careful as I should especially when I was working underground Edited June 14 by notsonice 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE June 14 3 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Rob, you seem to be confused again...I asked you to find some evidence that the reduction of particulates has brought with it a reduction in health issues...if there is no such evidence, then we must conclude that the health issues were not correlated with the particulate levels. That is simple enough for anyone to understand, you do not need a graduate training in statistics or experience in epidemiology, such as the current writer (ahem) has amassed. I show you current levels of particulates. There is no reduction. Stop with your fantasy that particulate levels have gone down. They clearly have not. Also now you are trying to say that PM matter is not bad for your health? That has been concluded beyond a doubt long ago. You must smoke cigarettes or something to delude yourself so much on the topic of air pollution. Stop embarrassing yourself. What is next? Are you going to ramble about electric boats and sharks? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 14 10 hours ago, turbguy said: Black Lung disease is not a result of smoking. And Black Lung Disease is obvious with a VERY specific type of lung irritation just like Silicosis causing necrosis of lung tissue. In either case, who in their right mind is going to use Coal when one has access to Natural gas. Problem, not as many have access to enough Natural gas or due to geopolitics do not want access to natural gas or can guarantee enough access. No one is going to be sorry when coal goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 June 14 1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: No one is going to be sorry when coal goes. Well, some who reside in Gillette, WY might be slightly perturbed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 14 20 minutes ago, turbguy said: Well, some who reside in Gillette, WY might be slightly perturbed. Well, it is a "short" drive north to the Bakken who have a bottomless need of labor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 14 Just now, footeab@yahoo.com said: Well, it is a "short" drive north to the Bakken who have a bottomless need of labor. Not a pretty though Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 June 14 32 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Well, it is a "short" drive north to the Bakken who have a bottomless need of labor. That's a commute I would avoid, particularly outside of the 3 weeks of summer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL June 14 On 6/12/2024 at 5:55 AM, Rob Plant said: Notsonice beat me to it with his numerous links that you werent able to argue against. Hopefully even the incredibly slow ones on here can figure it out now. Thanks Notsonice for posting the facts! You miss the point, Rob. If there has been a drastic reduction of atmospheric particulates from fossil fuels, then we would expect that any health problems related to fossil fuel particulates would also decline. If there has not been a similar drastic decline in associated health problems, then there must be some other factor involved, such as smoking. That is just standard epidemiological analysis, which anyone with an undergraduate knowledge of statistical methods should be aware of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL June 14 (edited) 12 hours ago, TailingsPond said: I show you current levels of particulates. There is no reduction. Stop with your fantasy that particulate levels have gone down. They clearly have not. Also now you are trying to say that PM matter is not bad for your health? That has been concluded beyond a doubt long ago. You must smoke cigarettes or something to delude yourself so much on the topic of air pollution. Stop embarrassing yourself. What is next? Are you going to ramble about electric boats and sharks? Are you still debating the reduction of particulates in the last three decades? You really should get up to speed. And no, most people do not work in a coal mine. Most of us are exposed to whatever particulates are in the atmosphere, that is where the progress has been made. "from 1990 to 2017 emissions of air toxics declined by 74 percent, largely driven by federal and state implementation of stationary and mobile source regulations." https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2022, gross domestic product increased 196 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 108 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 47 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent. The graph also shows that CO2 emissions, after having risen gradually for decades, have shown an overall decrease since 2007, and in 2021 were 7 percent higher than 1980 levels. The decrease in CO2 since 2007 comes despite the rapid increase in fossil fuel demand. So it appears that any relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and fossil fuels is not a clear or very strong one. There are other principal sources of CO2 which are not related to the use of fossil fuels. Those other sources appear to be overriding and are not related to human activity. Edited June 14 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE June 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: Are you still debating the reduction of particulates in the last three decades? You really should get up to speed. I show you real time-data of current pollution levels. Stop with your fantasy that the air is now clean, it is not. I really don't care if it was worse 30 years ago, I care about what me and my loved ones are breathing right now, today. Right now in the heart of fossil fuel country, Huston ,Texas the air quality is 63 or "moderate." Main pollutant PM 2.5. Right now, where I live (lots of oil but no more coal) the air quality is 20 or "good." Get Texas air quality up to "good" and then you can talk about particulate reductions. https://www.iqair.com/ca/usa/texas/houston "PM2.5 concentration in Houston is currently 3.1 times the WHO annual air quality guideline value" https://www.iqair.com/ca/canada/alberta/edmonton "PM2.5 concentration in Edmonton air currently meets the WHO annual air quality guideline value" There is no debate on this topic. Edited June 14 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE June 14 India and China where coal use is rising. https://www.iqair.com/ca/india 181 (unhealthy) https://www.iqair.com/ca/china 159 (unhealthy) Why do you want to emulate them again? We should do the opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 15 and the news out of China Peak oil already happened China is now an EV dominated country for new cars and buses and for Trucks....LNG LNG-Fuelled Trucks Boost China's Oil Replacement- As prices of natural gas have edged lower after a tumultuous 2022 and 2023, the utilization of LNG-fueled heavy duty trucks in China has skyrocketed, tripling in outright terms year-over-year.13 hours ago China's Oil Demand Threatened by LNG Trucks | OilPrice.com Reuters Saudi crude oil exports to China to fall for 3rd straight month in July, sources say Saudi crude oil exports to China will fall in July for a third straight month to about 36 million barrels amid plant maintenance and as some... . 3 days ago Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
