This kind of cause-and-effect study is notoriously hard to prove because so many
factors affect mortality -- lifestyle choices, heredity, life history,
employment, home environment, hobbies, soils, building materials, eating habits,
food sources, drugs, allergies, medical history, house location, and on and on.
To say that one thing was the primary cause for a specific number of people's
deaths is highly questionable, especially if the study was statistics-based and
not a case-by-case study. I urge the legislature to take this report with a big
grain of salt.
202 dead per year.... and Utah lawmakers do nothing.
Time to turn the lights out in california.
No it really doesn't and Utah lawmakers decided not to drink the Kool Aid like
you and your cronies Pagan.
Imagine the lives that would be saved if we all lived in caves and only ate
fruits and berries that had fallen freely from the trees and bushes. All these
modern conveniences such as electricity and running water have shortened our
lives and are killing people. The environmentalists are right.
I agree with "sensible scientist"!!Its sad to see science become
politicized, but that's exactly whats been happening the last few years.Utah lawmakers: think this through, how can ANYONE possibly come up
with numbers that show a SPECFIC AMOUNT of people died as the result of
pollution?Smoker?, jogger? both these groups use their lung
capacity more.Live in a rural area? Still have the same "pollution
death rate"? How can that be?Too many variables exist to draw any
sort of conclusions - UNLESS you're trying to get/cut funding for a particular
political agenda.Sorry guys, this "theory/study" has holes big
enough to drive a truck through!
JNA, Oh! The Kool Aid gambit! How clever.
Let's say x5 people live in a typical home in Utah. Because of the economy,
let's say x7. 202 people die, per year in Utah due to coal burning.
This report supports that. That's 28 homes, empty, due to the 202
dead Utahns per year. All this talk of morality, and 'clean living'
from the right. And yet, when it comes to actually giving Utahns a clean,
healthy way of life... it seems our Utah leadership only cares about
a tidy profit instead of the health and lives of people who live in Utah.
"The report says Utah should replace its most polluting coal plants with wind
and solar power and find ways to conserve energy."And we could
prevent even more pollution if UTA replaced all the buses with rikushas.....
Does the report say that air pollution kills 202 Utahns each year, or that
coal-fired power plants kill that many?I find it hard to believe that
pollution from our coal-fired plants kills 202 people in Utah (or anywhere
else). Most are located in eastern Utah. Given our prevailing west-to-east
airflow, I just don't see that many Utahns being exposed.I can see how
people could be affected by the muck they breathe during inversions along the
Wasatch front, but coal fired plants aren't big contributors to that. You could
do more good by encouraging mass transit and by discouraging smoking. Oh,
wait---we're already doing that.Pagan, most of the coal miners and union
workers in the power plants are hard-core Democrats. Carbon County has not
elected a Republican to any County office in at least 30 years.
And how many lives have coal-fired power plants saved by keeping people cool or
warm and providing them light and other necessities?Did they factor
that into the study?
The news article misstates what is in the report.The 202 deaths are
attributed to emissions from all Utah fossil-fuel sources of electricity, coal
and natural gas. Coal is 82% of the total, natural gas is 18%. The
202 deaths include both in-state and out-of-state deaths. The Utah deaths are
28, not 202.The number of deaths are estimates. They were not
determined from death certificates or estimated from epidemiological studies.
Instead they were derived (by computer modeling)from estimates of emissions,
estimates of exposure levels, and estimated sizes of the populations exposed.
Needless to say there is considerable uncertainty in the estimated number of
deaths, which the authors of the report acknowledge in the report.
Just read the research paper. It "estimates" 202 deaths each year (not
necessarily in Utah) due to generation of power using fossil fuel (coal and
natural gas). This isn't a scientific study of what has actually occurred. It
is an estimate generated by a think tank that makes its living promoting green
energy. To arrive at the figure of 202 "premature deaths", they estimate
how many toxic elements go up the smoke stacks, how widely the toxins are
disbursed, what percentage of the toxins are actually inhaled, and how many
people would be affected. Here are a few gems from the report:“...ozone exposure modeling is based on a single paper in which
relationships were derived for a single summertime month more than 10 years ago,
so the uncertainties for ozone impacts are likely large and potentially highly
biased...”“...even the well-characterized estimates have
appreciable uncertainties...”“...there are significant
uncertainties associated with the concentration-response functions for mortality
and morbidity outcomes...”I think we need more green power. But to
say that coal power kills 202 Utahns each year is simply sensationalism at its
Pagan,I don't blame you for being dismayed with the despicable
attitude some people have about the environment. Rest assured
though, if any of them are LDS, then they are far out of step with their
Church's teachings. "We're working very hard to try and find ways to
conserve the precious resources, help with clean air and use those kind of
practices that are environmentally responsible," -- Bishop H. David Burton, the
Church's presiding bishop. In April 2010, the LDS Church announced
that newly constructed buildings will be more environmentally friendly. The new Farmington stake center, for example, has 158 solar panels,
water conservation technology, etc. The scriptures teach that man
was given stewardship over the earth, and that every person will give an
accounting to God of their stewardship. There are no exemptions
mentioned for politicians or those who vote them in. :-)“For
decades we have looked for innovative ways to ... reflect our commitment AS
WISE STEWARDS OF GOD'S CREATIONS.” -- H. David Burton (EMPHASIS added).
I moved to Utah from Alaska and have had respiratory problems ever
since. It's silly to nitpick the study when everyone knows the air
here is substandard.
I would like to read the report..anyone know where it is on the web. The
consulting firms mission statement is a little troubling "Beyond Business as
Usual: Investigating a Future without Coal and Nuclear Power in the U.S." Appears to be an eastern think tank group.
@oldasdirt 4:41 p.m.Deseret News doesn't allow links to be posted.
However, you can find the report online by googling either the report's name:"Co-Benefits of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Utah"
(no quotes)or the report's file name:"synapse_co-benefits.pdf" (no quotes)
I don't want to be an "I-told-you-so" but, I TOLD YOU SO!!!!...
If we want to save 202 lives let's get rid of alcohol and tobacco products. Oh
while we're at it get rid of fast food. I bet we'd save more than 202 lives.
This news article is beyond ridiculous. It goes something like this: "Some
state agencies (it doesn't say which ones or who is heading up these agencies)
commissioned, but don't endorse, a study that says Coal Fire Power Plants are
killing over 200 people in Utah each year. (Again, the story doesn't mention
which Utahns died.) Some doctors who agree with the study have told the
governor to do something so that Utah will replace all it's Coal Fire Power
plants with wind and solar. (The article also doesn't mention one state where
that has, or ever is going to happen.) Lousy journalism, bogus science, and
tree-hugging fear mongering at its finest.
This study seems ridiculous to me. Though I do not see coal fired power plants
being the the power of the future, for now they are the best we have. Don't be
putting people out of jobs and raising energy costs based on some bogus study
done with a political motive in mind.
the chemical impact of burning fuel for energy is pretty scientifically
accessible. I don't think that the science is at fault here--just because people
are noticing that there may be cleaner ways to obtain our needs in energy. We shouldn't want to continue to burn coal just because we've always
done it that way--or even that it's the most immediate and financially
beneficial solution. Back when pioneers founded the cities they didn't have
solar cells--though they did occasionally employ hydraulic/mechanical power to
power mills. Now we have such technologies, and should look into how best to
deploy them. A long-term sensible policy towards energy migration
will help us all out in the long-run. Who doesn't want cleaner air? This doesn't mean we abandon conservative principles or economic
sensiblity--but instead we should embrace ecologically conservative principles
as well. In other words, it should be on our to-do list, and we should
investigate how to make cleaner energy more accessible.
I think Utah's new slogan that they should put on all license plates is:"Utah's air, it's to die for."
Only 202. Those are acceptable losses when we figure how much money we make on
polluting in Utah.
What do similar studies say about California, New York, or other States
(thousands dead?) and countries like China or India (Millions dead?)? No
relative comparison there.By the way, what green energy solutions
are "they" proposing to replace coal fired electric plants within the next 30
years? Real solutions?
Let's give the Left 4 years to enact any legislation or regulation they want. If
after 4 more years anybody dies for any reason, we repeal the legislation and
regulation, abolish the EPA and the DOE, and make anyone who voted for the
legislation or enacted the regulations compensate, out of their own pockets, the
families of anyone who has died.If they can't point to exactly how
their ideas, enacted as policy, saved lives and to exactly how many, they should
at the very least have to compensate the businesses who were burdened by the
regulations. Sorry, you don't get to accuse the owners of coal plants of killing
people and then run and hide without telling us how many people you put out of
work and how much of a hardship you place on the consumer due to every
cost-increasing regulation imposed on business by every single one of your
sky-is-falling predictions. It's time to hold the environmentalists accountable
for the consequences of their agenda.
Sure... replace a 1.8 GW power plant with 857 windmills at 2.1 MW each. Sounds
logical to me!(Numbers are from the IPP plant in Delta and the
windmills at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon).