THIS letter would have you think auto emissions are bad because they emit carbon
monoxide, while power plant emissions are fine, because they emit carbon
dioxide, alluding to deception by Moench in a larger debate over carbon dioxide
and global warming.The truth is there are many other pollutants in
both auto and power plant emissions that are of concern. As for
power plants, read about pecan farmers in Texas having their crops decimated by
power plants, specifically by SULPHER dioxide emissions. In Texas they're
conducting a war against the EPA, protesting perceived federal overreach, with
overtones of carbon dioxide and the global warming debate, but in their
opposition to EPA authority Texans appear paralyzed to deal with a polluntant
that is outside the global warming debate.Even if you take carbon
dioxide out of the debate, power plants emit other pollutants they vigorously
fight having to clean up.
The letter gets an "F" for science accuracy.No one is
arguing that CO2 is the source of the chemicals causing brain damage. Automobile
exhaust contains a complex stew of toxic chemicals created by the incomplete
combustion of fuel and air. The yellow-brown smog that hangs over our valley on
days like today are testimony to this simple fact.Moreover, in
modern engines the output of carbon dioxide is tremendously greater than the
output of carbon monoxide.Air pollution is bad for us on many
levels. Don't confuse the immediate health threats attributable to living in a
smog-choked city with the long-term global climate change caused by rising
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. They are two separate, but
equally real issues that require our serious attention.
"carbon dioxide, a benign gas". Like water is benign, until you
drown. Maybe you need to stick to the facts and not ignore a serious issue.
Don, there is nothing "benign" about massive amount of Carbon Dioxide.
I agree, the letter writer gets an "F" in science. It's mindboggling
that anyone arguing againstt this is ignoring essencial facts: the entire
equation. CO2 is just om part of the entire equation. Sulfur, as I remember, is
the bigger and more dangerous component. I think there is one other component
but I cannot recall it at this point.
The better statement should have been. If polution is the cause of all these
health problems, why is it that we have more health problems now that attributed
to pollution than we did 30 years ago when the air was more polluted?
The Utah association of armchair climatologists does NOT need science to get in
the way of a good argument. Remember our mantra, 'we cannot affect the climate,
so we don't have to do anything about it'.
' If polution is the cause of all these health problems, why is it that we have
more health problems now that attributed to pollution than we did 30 years ago
when the air was more polluted?' - RedShirt | 9:51 a.m. Dec. 9, 2011 And your source from x30 years ago?
Most things we read are exaggerated. Such as the 20+ year war on drugs. How
much REAL truthful information was told vs myths that perpetuated panic. It is
just the way things are. Read the news. Research yourself the truth in it.
To "Pagan | 11:16 a.m." since you won't believe me anyway (or you
won't be able to find the article), maybe this will educate those who are
actually looking to learn:From the Wasatch Front Regional Council
and their "Air Quality Newsletter2008" we find that the emissions of
everything tracked that we have less pollution being emitted now than we had in
1980. For example in Salt Lake County in 1980 there was about 180 tons/day of
vehicle emissions pumped into the atmosphere. By 2010 the report has estimated
the emissions to be about 90 tons/day. So, in 30 years the emission were cut in
half.So, how can a reasonable scientist claim that pollution causes
specific problems when during the time of decreasing pollution there was an
increase in a disease?
Of course, there's nothing benign about massive amounts of O2 either. In fact, just about anything taken to excess is harmful. The only reason many
"green" technologies are "green" is because of how few are
actually in use. As we move to these other technologies we will discover
@Redshirt"So, how can a reasonable scientist claim that pollution
causes specific problems when during the time of decreasing pollution there was
an increase in a disease? "Does that account for population
To "atl134 | 2:59 p.m." let me dumb things down a little bit more for
you.yes, it accounts for population change.For example,
in 1980 when pollution emitted by cars was 2 times as much as it is today there
were fewer cars driving around and fewer people, yet respitory diseases were
less prevalent (cases per 1000 people). Now, there are more people and more
cases of respitory disease (measured in cases per 1000 people). How do you
explain that? If pollution from automobiles causes diseases, and you cut the
pollution, shouldn't you see a decrease in disease too?
@Redshirt"How do you explain that? If pollution from automobiles
causes diseases, and you cut the pollution, shouldn't you see a decrease in
disease too? "My first guess says it's a matter of developed
medicine being better than 30 years ago (i.e. fewer undiagnosed conditions now
than there used to be... or possibly overdiagnosed conditions now).
To "atl134 | 8:06 a.m." so, in other words, you don't know.
Everything that I have seen shows that the increase in respitory disease in
children along the Wasatch Front has more to do with an increase in the number
of households where there is at least 1 person who smokes.It sounds
like you are grasping at straws trying to justify your position eventhough there
is not any evidence to support your claims.