Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
35. Fair enough.
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:04 PM
Aug 2013

www.aeaweb.org/aea/2013conference/program/retrieve.php?pdfid=291‎

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is, perhaps, the most harmful pollutant produced by coal-fired power plants. While particulate matter is released directly from smokestacks to some extent, a much greater amount of particle pollution is formed from atmospheric reactions of SO2 and NOx. As the source of nearly 60 percent of the nation's total SO2 emissions, coal combustion is one of the most significant contributors to particulate pollution in the U.S. According to the American Lung Association, more than 93 million Americans live in areas where they are exposed to unhealthful short-term levels of particulate matter and more than 54 million people live in regions with harmful year-round levels of particulate matter. Inhaling particulate matter can result a wide range of adverse health effects, including asthma attacks, lung tissue damage, stroke, heart attack and premature death.8 The public health burden of particle pollution is staggering; a recent study estimated that particulate matter from coal plants is responsible for nearly 24,000 deaths each year.

(Note: 24000/365 = 66 deaths from coal every day. Take your pick of how many of them are children. Does it matter?)

Premature Death
23,600
Heart Attacks
38,200
Asthma Attacks
554,000
Hospital Admissions
21,850
Emergency Room Visits
26,000
Lost Work days
3,186,000

Air Toxics and Mercury


Burning coal also produces millions of pounds of toxic air emissions each year, making coal-fired power plants the largest source of air toxics in the U.S. In EPA smoke stack tests, coal plants were found to release 67 different air toxics, many of which are known or probable human carcinogens and neurotoxins that can harm brain development and irritate the respiratory system. Among the array of air toxics emitted by coal plants, mercury is the pollutant of greatest concern. In 2005, coal plants were responsible for more than 65 percent of all mercury air emissions.

After mercury is released to the air, it is deposited in bodies of water where it is converted to methylmercury (an organic form) that accumulates in fish tissues. Humans are exposed to mercury primarily through the consumption of contaminated fish. Methlymercuryís neurotoxic effects are particularly threatening to fetal and child development. Fetal exposure via the placenta can cause mental retardation and brain damage, while continued exposure in early childhood can result in learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders. Approximately one in six women of childbearing age now have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood and it is estimated that between 300,000 and 600,000 children are at serious risk of severe neurological and developmental impairment from mercury exposure each year. Though mercury poses the greatest threat to children, research shows that mercury exposure may increase the risk of coronary heart disease among men."


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Year 2005 Public Data Release. Section B. http://epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri05/pdfs/eReport.pdf

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs for Nitrogen Oxides. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts175.html

American Lung Association, State of the Air: 2007. 2007. http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/sota07/ALA_SOTA_07.pdf

U.S. EPA, OAQPS Staff Paper: Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (January 2007).

Bell ML, Dominici F, Samet JM. A meta-analysis of time-series ozone and mortality with comparison to the national morbidity, mortality, and air pollution study. Epidemiology 2005; 16: 436-445

Ito K, DeLeon SF, Lippmann M. Associations between ozone and daily mortality: analysis and meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2005; 16: 446-457.

Brook, RD, et al. Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association. Circulation, 2004

Hong, Y.-C., Lee J.-T., Kim, H., Ha, E.-H., Schwartz, J., and Christiani, D.C. Effects of Air Pollutants on Acute Stroke Mortality. Environ. Health Perspect 2002; Vol. 110, pp. 187-191

Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. The Effect of Particulate Air Pollution on Emergency Admissions for Myocardial Infarction: A Multicity Case-Crossover Analysis. Environ Health Perspec 2005; 113 78-982.

Abt Associates. The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions, 2000. http://www.catf.us/publications/reprots/Abt_PM_report.php

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Study of hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric utility steam generating units - final report to Congress. February, 1998.

453/R-98-004a. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blood and hair mercury levels in young children and women of childbearing age - United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, March 2, 2001

Mahaffey KR, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methylmercury: Epedimiology Update. Presentation given at the National Forum
on Contaminants in Fish
. San Diego, CA. January 26th, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/2004/presentations/monday/mahaffey.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.July 2000. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf

World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2002: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2002. http://www.who.int/whr/en

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fuck. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #1
The panel says it cannot determine? FUCK it, of course these are related. CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2013 #2
Well, no, it's not obvious Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #9
Not too long ago some nuclear loving DUer upaloopa Aug 2013 #3
That was probably me. wtmusic Aug 2013 #26
. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of deaths from coal? dixiegrrrrl Aug 2013 #34
Fair enough. wtmusic Aug 2013 #35
you're saying it's not so bad then CreekDog Aug 2013 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #4
There's a reason that it "can't be determined" FBaggins Aug 2013 #8
The fact that this result, which demonstrates that there's been no impact... phantom power Aug 2013 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #12
You are comparing a rate to a raw number? kristopher Aug 2013 #15
The 15-20 figure is just an example FBaggins Aug 2013 #17
Which begs the question of *why* you fabricated such a number... kristopher Aug 2013 #18
Because, unlike you, I actually understand the facts. FBaggins Aug 2013 #20
You fabricated numbers that grossly skewed the available data. kristopher Aug 2013 #21
No rational person could read that post as anything but a hypothetical. FBaggins Aug 2013 #29
Seems like many rational people did read your numbers as data-based estimates caraher Aug 2013 #62
You're saying most thyroid cancer goes into remission? cprise Aug 2013 #22
Not as I understand "remission", no. FBaggins Aug 2013 #30
They would have to be *either* remissive or not cancer at all (benign) cprise Aug 2013 #31
Not as the NIH/NCI define it. FBaggins Aug 2013 #32
you're linking to Natural News? CreekDog Aug 2013 #37
For treatment advice? Of course not. FBaggins Aug 2013 #39
Everyone does not interpret the world numerically Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #14
Who the hell is Steven Starr wtmusic Aug 2013 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #41
He's a lab technician. wtmusic Aug 2013 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #45
No, they didn't win a 1985 Nobel Prize for their work. wtmusic Aug 2013 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #47
It is not the same organization, and it's not an "arm". wtmusic Aug 2013 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #49
There is no such thing as an "argument from science without prejudice". wtmusic Aug 2013 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #51
Funny you mention, nuclear waste can be reused. wtmusic Aug 2013 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #55
The risk exists only because we're short on money and short on time. wtmusic Aug 2013 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #58
No prob, thanks. wtmusic Aug 2013 #59
Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming kristopher Aug 2013 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #54
Actually... it doesn't. FBaggins Aug 2013 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #44
18 so far ... more will develop it later ... nt bananas Aug 2013 #5
Incoming n/t Hydra Aug 2013 #6
I'm sure the local nuclear apologists will be along in 3...2...1 nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #7
errr... phantom power Aug 2013 #11
errrr.... Post #15 might give you food for thought. nt kristopher Aug 2013 #16
Only if he's entirely ignorant re: what "incidence rate" means. nt FBaggins Aug 2013 #33
I said nothing about nasty or mean. There is more to come, tell me that in five, ten years. nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #28
I see one of our resident nuke worshippers is already here mocking the very idea that kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #13
It doesn't. wtmusic Aug 2013 #24
in children it does? CreekDog Aug 2013 #38
It always has before FBaggins Aug 2013 #40
The page has been taken down. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23
More likely NHK is censoring it. kristopher Aug 2013 #27
The TV news video is still on youtube bananas Aug 2013 #61
There certainly seems to have been an awful lot of self-deleting on this subject ... Nihil Aug 2013 #60
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NHK: Thyroid cancer found...»Reply #35