DanG 1
rushmc 23
DanGQuoteWhich point?
I'll pick one:
Thanks for the reply.
Can you comment on my main point, restated a number of times now, that you are presuming disasterous effects of climate change policies, with no supporting evidence?
How about you then, proving all the man made damages will come to pass?
You cant!!! Cause they have not happened yet nor will they
Yet you step up on your high horse and claim some kind of moral superiority! (but that is what alarmist do)
As of right now there is nearly 20 years of gathered data that suggests that the claims of the alarmists are bs
Not even YOU can denie that
And I am still waiting on proof that power plant emissions today kill tens of thousands of people here in the us
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> I need convincing that the rate is going to cause global societal crises.
This might interest you. Not global but in your area:
===================
Climate change, California water supplies focus of Sacramento seminar Tuesday
By Matt Weiser
The Sacramento Bee
December 8, 2014 Updated 34 minutes ago
The public has a unique opportunity Tuesday to learn about how climate change may alter the availability of water in California and to offer ideas on adapting to those changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is producing a detailed study on how climate change will affect water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, the source of most of California’s fresh water. The project encompasses the entire Central Valley. This includes three major basins: the Sacramento on the north, the San Joaquin in the central portion and the Tulare Lake Basin on the south. A portion of the Trinity River Basin in Northern California is also included.
The study is projected to be completed in the spring. It will use information from throughout the basins, including experiences of interested individuals and organizations.
Tuesday’s meeting will summarize results from the study so far and allow the public to suggest strategies to cope with future water supply challenges.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/08/4275900/climate-change-california-water.html?sp=/99/406/#storylink=cpy
=======================
This might interest you. Not global but in your area:
===================
Climate change, California water supplies focus of Sacramento seminar Tuesday
By Matt Weiser
The Sacramento Bee
December 8, 2014 Updated 34 minutes ago
The public has a unique opportunity Tuesday to learn about how climate change may alter the availability of water in California and to offer ideas on adapting to those changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is producing a detailed study on how climate change will affect water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, the source of most of California’s fresh water. The project encompasses the entire Central Valley. This includes three major basins: the Sacramento on the north, the San Joaquin in the central portion and the Tulare Lake Basin on the south. A portion of the Trinity River Basin in Northern California is also included.
The study is projected to be completed in the spring. It will use information from throughout the basins, including experiences of interested individuals and organizations.
Tuesday’s meeting will summarize results from the study so far and allow the public to suggest strategies to cope with future water supply challenges.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/08/4275900/climate-change-california-water.html?sp=/99/406/#storylink=cpy
=======================
brenthutch 444
DanGQuoteWhich point?
I'll pick one:
Thanks for the reply.
Can you comment on my main point, restated a number of times now, that you are presuming disasterous effects of climate change policies, with no supporting evidence?
We all agree that there are costs associated with AGW policies we may quibble as to the extent of those costs, but we all agree there are costs.
You on the other hand have provided zero evidence that any of these policies would have ANY impact. When making a cost/benefit analysis, if the benefit = zero than ANY cost no matter how small is unacceptable.
rushmc 23
billvon> I need convincing that the rate is going to cause global societal crises.
This might interest you. Not global but in your area:
===================
Climate change, California water supplies focus of Sacramento seminar Tuesday
By Matt Weiser
The Sacramento Bee
December 8, 2014 Updated 34 minutes ago
The public has a unique opportunity Tuesday to learn about how climate change may alter the availability of water in California and to offer ideas on adapting to those changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is producing a detailed study on how climate change will affect water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, the source of most of California’s fresh water. The project encompasses the entire Central Valley. This includes three major basins: the Sacramento on the north, the San Joaquin in the central portion and the Tulare Lake Basin on the south. A portion of the Trinity River Basin in Northern California is also included.
The study is projected to be completed in the spring. It will use information from throughout the basins, including experiences of interested individuals and organizations.
Tuesday’s meeting will summarize results from the study so far and allow the public to suggest strategies to cope with future water supply challenges.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/08/4275900/climate-change-california-water.html?sp=/99/406/#storylink=cpy
=======================
And if the study comes out and says that AWG will help the people ? (of course it will not as the outcome is already determined by political agenda)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
billvon> I need convincing that the rate is going to cause global societal crises.
This might interest you. Not global but in your area:
===================
Climate change, California water supplies focus of Sacramento seminar Tuesday
By Matt Weiser
The Sacramento Bee
December 8, 2014 Updated 34 minutes ago
The public has a unique opportunity Tuesday to learn about how climate change may alter the availability of water in California and to offer ideas on adapting to those changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is producing a detailed study on how climate change will affect water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, the source of most of California’s fresh water. The project encompasses the entire Central Valley. This includes three major basins: the Sacramento on the north, the San Joaquin in the central portion and the Tulare Lake Basin on the south. A portion of the Trinity River Basin in Northern California is also included.
The study is projected to be completed in the spring. It will use information from throughout the basins, including experiences of interested individuals and organizations.
Tuesday’s meeting will summarize results from the study so far and allow the public to suggest strategies to cope with future water supply challenges.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/08/4275900/climate-change-california-water.html?sp=/99/406/#storylink=cpy
=======================
Talk about good timing
QuoteStudy: Causes of Calif. drought are natural, not man-made
QuoteNatural weather patterns, not man-made climate change, are the cause of the historic drought that's parching California.
"It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state," said Richard Seager, report lead author and professor with Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report, "Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought," was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The report did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal, but was reviewed by other NOAA scientists.
"In fact, multi-year droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again," he said.
The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern North Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
that same report says
So it seems you should support increasing mans effects on climate
If you want to have water
QuoteThe current study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is almost opposite to what computer models predict will result from human-induced climate change.
So it seems you should support increasing mans effects on climate
If you want to have water
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,132
>No rebuttal to your fictional numbers?
Here are more numbers for you to deny. These come from an American Lung Association report.
=====================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon propose new limits on hazardous air pollutants released to the atmosphere from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The proposal, known as the "Utility Air Toxics Rule", will set new limits on emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which are defined by Congress as chemical pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects, and that adversely affect the environment. The new power plant limits are to be based on the emissions performance of the best performing power plants and pollution control systems currently in use. When the rules are in place, this will be the first time that EPA has implemented federal limits on mercury, arsenic, lead, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acids, dioxins, and other toxic substances from coal-fired power plants.
The American Lung Association commissioned Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. to prepare a report on public health and environmental impacts of hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants that would be a useful resource for the general public. The major findings of the report are summarized here.
Sources and Emissions
• Over 440 power plants greater than 25 megawatts located in 46 states and Puerto Rico, burn coal to generate electric power (USEPA, 20 I Oa); coal combustion accounts for 45% of electricity produced in the United States (USDOE, 2009a).
• The National Emissions Inventory prepared by EPA indicates that emissions to the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants: o contain 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutant identified by EPA as posing a threat to human health and the environment, o release 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants annually that account for 40% of all hazardous air pollutant emissions from point sources, more than any other point source category, and o are the largest point source category of hydrochloric acid, mercury, and arsenic releases to air (USEPA 2007).
• Coal-fired power plants are also a major source of emissions for several criteria air pollutants; including sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter.
Toxicity and Impacts on Public Health and the Environment
• Hazardous air pollutants emitted to the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants can cause a wide range of adverse health effects including damage to eyes, skin, and breathing passages; negative effects on the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system; the potential to cause cancer; impairment of neurological function and ability to learn; and pulmonary and cardiovascular disease (USEPA, 1998; USEPA, 201 I a; USEPA, 201 1 b).
• Public health risks associated with exposure to mercury in food and metals in airborne fine particulate matter are among the most notable adverse health and environmental impacts associated with emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
• Coal-fired power plants can be significant contributors to deposition of mercury on soil and water. o A study in eastern Ohio reported that coal combustion accounted for 70% of the mercury present in rainfall (Keeler et al., 2006). o In the same area, 42% of the mercury in samples of rain collected in the summer was attributed to emissions from a coal-fired power plant located less than a mile away (White et al., 2009).
o Mercury that deposits to the earth's surface from air can make its way into waterways where it is converted by microorganisms into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury (Grandjean 2010).
• EPA has determined that exposure to fine particulate matter is a cause of cardiovascular effects including heart attacks and the associated mortality; is likely a cause of hospital admissions for breathing problems and worsening of existing respiratory illness such as asthma; and is linked to other adverse respiratory, reproductive, developmental, and cancer outcomes (USEPA, 2009a; CASAC 2010).
• Hazardous air pollutants, such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, radium, selenium, and other metals, are integral components of fine particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants.
• The metal content of fine particulate matter has been linked to cardiovascular public health impacts in epidemiological and other studies (e.g. Zanobetti et al., 2009).
• In a recent population-based health impact assessment, particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants was estimated to account for an average of $3.7 billion' of public health damages each year (NRC, 2010).
• Environmental impacts of power plant hazardous air pollutant emissions include acidification of the environment, bioaccumulation of toxic metals, contamination of riven, lakes, and oceans, reduced visibility due to haze, and degradation of buildings and culturally important monuments.
=========================
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf
Here are more numbers for you to deny. These come from an American Lung Association report.
=====================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon propose new limits on hazardous air pollutants released to the atmosphere from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The proposal, known as the "Utility Air Toxics Rule", will set new limits on emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which are defined by Congress as chemical pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects, and that adversely affect the environment. The new power plant limits are to be based on the emissions performance of the best performing power plants and pollution control systems currently in use. When the rules are in place, this will be the first time that EPA has implemented federal limits on mercury, arsenic, lead, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acids, dioxins, and other toxic substances from coal-fired power plants.
The American Lung Association commissioned Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. to prepare a report on public health and environmental impacts of hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants that would be a useful resource for the general public. The major findings of the report are summarized here.
Sources and Emissions
• Over 440 power plants greater than 25 megawatts located in 46 states and Puerto Rico, burn coal to generate electric power (USEPA, 20 I Oa); coal combustion accounts for 45% of electricity produced in the United States (USDOE, 2009a).
• The National Emissions Inventory prepared by EPA indicates that emissions to the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants: o contain 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutant identified by EPA as posing a threat to human health and the environment, o release 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants annually that account for 40% of all hazardous air pollutant emissions from point sources, more than any other point source category, and o are the largest point source category of hydrochloric acid, mercury, and arsenic releases to air (USEPA 2007).
• Coal-fired power plants are also a major source of emissions for several criteria air pollutants; including sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter.
Toxicity and Impacts on Public Health and the Environment
• Hazardous air pollutants emitted to the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants can cause a wide range of adverse health effects including damage to eyes, skin, and breathing passages; negative effects on the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system; the potential to cause cancer; impairment of neurological function and ability to learn; and pulmonary and cardiovascular disease (USEPA, 1998; USEPA, 201 I a; USEPA, 201 1 b).
• Public health risks associated with exposure to mercury in food and metals in airborne fine particulate matter are among the most notable adverse health and environmental impacts associated with emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
• Coal-fired power plants can be significant contributors to deposition of mercury on soil and water. o A study in eastern Ohio reported that coal combustion accounted for 70% of the mercury present in rainfall (Keeler et al., 2006). o In the same area, 42% of the mercury in samples of rain collected in the summer was attributed to emissions from a coal-fired power plant located less than a mile away (White et al., 2009).
o Mercury that deposits to the earth's surface from air can make its way into waterways where it is converted by microorganisms into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury (Grandjean 2010).
• EPA has determined that exposure to fine particulate matter is a cause of cardiovascular effects including heart attacks and the associated mortality; is likely a cause of hospital admissions for breathing problems and worsening of existing respiratory illness such as asthma; and is linked to other adverse respiratory, reproductive, developmental, and cancer outcomes (USEPA, 2009a; CASAC 2010).
• Hazardous air pollutants, such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, radium, selenium, and other metals, are integral components of fine particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants.
• The metal content of fine particulate matter has been linked to cardiovascular public health impacts in epidemiological and other studies (e.g. Zanobetti et al., 2009).
• In a recent population-based health impact assessment, particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants was estimated to account for an average of $3.7 billion' of public health damages each year (NRC, 2010).
• Environmental impacts of power plant hazardous air pollutant emissions include acidification of the environment, bioaccumulation of toxic metals, contamination of riven, lakes, and oceans, reduced visibility due to haze, and degradation of buildings and culturally important monuments.
=========================
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf
[Reply]Can you comment on my main point, restated a number of times now, that you are presuming disasterous effects of climate change policies, with no supporting evidence?
True. I cannot predict the future. I say it will be a problem. I say people will die as energy becomes more scarce and more expensive. I say that the communities built around coal mines that have been idled are suffering a lot. Is that a stretch?
I say that there will be winners and losers. One could say that the War in Iraq is not a disaster. Or even if it was it averted a worse disaster.
Let's look at Germany for an example. It's energy policy is to move to renewables. The energy price has risen. Large industrial companies cannot afford the prices for extra energy and still be able to export. So Germany says the largest users of energy are exempt.
When there isn't enough power to meet demand, the big users shut down. They they get compensated. Why give excceptions to german industry?
Because the German government is smart enough to know that to do hat they want would devastate the economy. When economies go bad, people suffer.
My evidence is Germany. Electricity price increase? Yep. Paid by consumers? Yep. Except big corporations that are the biggest users and polluters? Yep. And money to others? Yep. Increase in coal usage? Yep.
Wait, what? Increase in coal usage? Yep. I kid you not. Germany moved too quickly to mothball its nuclear so it has to use more coal power to take up the slack. Germany showed how a place can increase its wind and solar power generation and increase coal power generation while increasing prices and giving breaks to businesses.
Evidence: the law of unintended consequences.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
billvon>No rebuttal to your fictional numbers?
Here are more numbers for you to deny. These come from an American Lung Association report.
=====================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon propose new limits on hazardous air pollutants released to the atmosphere from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The proposal, known as the "Utility Air Toxics Rule", will set new limits on emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which are defined by Congress as chemical pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects, and that adversely affect the environment. The new power plant limits are to be based on the emissions performance of the best performing power plants and pollution control systems currently in use. When the rules are in place, this will be the first time that EPA has implemented federal limits on mercury, arsenic, lead, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acids, dioxins, and other toxic substances from coal-fired power plants.
The American Lung Association commissioned Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. to prepare a report on public health and environmental impacts of hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants that would be a useful resource for the general public. The major findings of the report are summarized here.
Sources and Emissions
• Over 440 power plants greater than 25 megawatts located in 46 states and Puerto Rico, burn coal to generate electric power (USEPA, 20 I Oa); coal combustion accounts for 45% of electricity produced in the United States (USDOE, 2009a).
• The National Emissions Inventory prepared by EPA indicates that emissions to the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants: o contain 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutant identified by EPA as posing a threat to human health and the environment, o release 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants annually that account for 40% of all hazardous air pollutant emissions from point sources, more than any other point source category, and o are the largest point source category of hydrochloric acid, mercury, and arsenic releases to air (USEPA 2007).
• Coal-fired power plants are also a major source of emissions for several criteria air pollutants; including sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter.
Toxicity and Impacts on Public Health and the Environment
• Hazardous air pollutants emitted to the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants can cause a wide range of adverse health effects including damage to eyes, skin, and breathing passages; negative effects on the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system; the potential to cause cancer; impairment of neurological function and ability to learn; and pulmonary and cardiovascular disease (USEPA, 1998; USEPA, 201 I a; USEPA, 201 1 b).
• Public health risks associated with exposure to mercury in food and metals in airborne fine particulate matter are among the most notable adverse health and environmental impacts associated with emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
• Coal-fired power plants can be significant contributors to deposition of mercury on soil and water. o A study in eastern Ohio reported that coal combustion accounted for 70% of the mercury present in rainfall (Keeler et al., 2006). o In the same area, 42% of the mercury in samples of rain collected in the summer was attributed to emissions from a coal-fired power plant located less than a mile away (White et al., 2009).
o Mercury that deposits to the earth's surface from air can make its way into waterways where it is converted by microorganisms into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury (Grandjean 2010).
• EPA has determined that exposure to fine particulate matter is a cause of cardiovascular effects including heart attacks and the associated mortality; is likely a cause of hospital admissions for breathing problems and worsening of existing respiratory illness such as asthma; and is linked to other adverse respiratory, reproductive, developmental, and cancer outcomes (USEPA, 2009a; CASAC 2010).
• Hazardous air pollutants, such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, radium, selenium, and other metals, are integral components of fine particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants.
• The metal content of fine particulate matter has been linked to cardiovascular public health impacts in epidemiological and other studies (e.g. Zanobetti et al., 2009).
• In a recent population-based health impact assessment, particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants was estimated to account for an average of $3.7 billion' of public health damages each year (NRC, 2010).
• Environmental impacts of power plant hazardous air pollutant emissions include acidification of the environment, bioaccumulation of toxic metals, contamination of riven, lakes, and oceans, reduced visibility due to haze, and degradation of buildings and culturally important monuments.
=========================
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf
Bill?
Really?
Another study?
Based on what?
There best guestimates?
look
I want clean air just as much as the next guy
Removing particulates and mercury are good things
But this lung group works hand in hand with the epa to push an agenda based on feelings as much as anything
As some point this is akin to making a car go no faster than 10 mph and have it made completely of impact absorbing foam so we do not lose one life
And taking anything the EPA says today as truthful is the same as accepting what local DNR's say about endangered wild life
So, show me what this "study" bases its "conclusions" on and I will take a look
otherwis, it is just he same oh same oh
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
Jesus, it's hard to have a conversation when you won't read and reply.
I admit I can't prove that all the damage predicted from climate change will happen. That's predicting the future, and no one can do that. I'm also trying to point out that you can't prove all the economic damage from environmental policies will happen.
Yeah, snide comment like that show that your horse is just as high, if not higher.
I do deny it. So there.
Just like I'm waiting on your better numbers.
- Dan G
QuoteHow about you then, proving all the man made damages will come to pass?
You cant!!! Cause they have not happened yet nor will they
I admit I can't prove that all the damage predicted from climate change will happen. That's predicting the future, and no one can do that. I'm also trying to point out that you can't prove all the economic damage from environmental policies will happen.
QuoteYet you step up on your high horse and claim some kind of moral superiority! (but that is what alarmist do)
Yeah, snide comment like that show that your horse is just as high, if not higher.
QuoteAs of right now there is nearly 20 years of gathered data that suggests that the claims of the alarmists are bs
Not even YOU can denie that
I do deny it. So there.
QuoteAnd I am still waiting on proof that power plant emissions today kill tens of thousands of people here in the us
Just like I'm waiting on your better numbers.
- Dan G
rushmc 23
DanGJesus, it's hard to have a conversation when you won't read and reply.
QuoteHow about you then, proving all the man made damages will come to pass?
You cant!!! Cause they have not happened yet nor will they
I admit I can't prove that all the damage predicted from climate change will happen. That's predicting the future, and no one can do that. I'm also trying to point out that you can't prove all the economic damage from environmental policies will happen.QuoteYet you step up on your high horse and claim some kind of moral superiority! (but that is what alarmist do)
Yeah, snide comment like that show that your horse is just as high, if not higher.QuoteAs of right now there is nearly 20 years of gathered data that suggests that the claims of the alarmists are bs
Not even YOU can denie that
I do deny it. So there.QuoteAnd I am still waiting on proof that power plant emissions today kill tens of thousands of people here in the us
Just like I'm waiting on your better numbers.
So you have nothing more than what ifs
You deny 20 years of data as well
As all good alarmist do
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
[Reply]
The public has a unique opportunity Tuesday to learn about how climate change may alter the availability of water in California and to offer ideas on adapting to those changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is producing a detailed study on how climate change will affect water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, the source of most of California’s fresh water.
The public has a unique opportunity Tuesday to learn about how climate change may alter the availability of water in California and to offer ideas on adapting to those changes.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is producing a detailed study on how climate change will affect water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, the source of most of California’s fresh water.
Why are they studying it, bill? It's been predicted for decades that rainfall will increase in California, snowpack will decrease. Meaning that use of the ater requires greater storage capacity because less will be stored as snow in the Sierras.
This is what the science said until a couple of years ago. Once a drought set in, the focus changed from the science to the rhetoric.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon
Toxicity and Impacts on Public Health and the Environment
• Hazardous air pollutants emitted to the atmosphere by coal-fired power plantscanprobably don't cause a wide range of adverse health effects including damage to eyes, skin, and breathing passages; negative effects on the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system; the potential to cause cancer; impairment of neurological function and ability to learn; and pulmonary and cardiovascular disease (USEPA, 1998; USEPA, 201 I a; USEPA, 201 1 b).
• Public health risks associated with exposure to mercury in food and metals in airborne fine particulate matter are among the most notable adverse health and environmental impactsassociated withthat we can't say are caused by emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
• Coal-fired power plantscan beare not established as significant contributors to deposition of mercury on soil and water. o A study in eastern Ohio reported that coal combustion accounted for 70% of the mercury present in rainfall (Keeler et al., 2006). o In the same area, 42% of the mercury in samples of rain collected in the summer was attributed to emissions from a coal-fired power plant located less than a mile away (White et al., 2009).
o Mercury that deposits to the earth's surface from aircanwe want to tell you make its way into waterways where it is converted by microorganisms into methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury (Grandjean 2010).
• EPA has determined that exposure to fine particulate matter is a cause of cardiovascular effects including heart attacks and the associated mortality; is likely a cause of hospital admissions for breathing problems and worsening of existing respiratory illness such as asthma; and is linked to other adverse respiratory, reproductive, developmental, and cancer outcomes (USEPA, 2009a; CASAC 2010), but we specifically avoided saying coal-fired plants cause it in this bullet point.
• Hazardous air pollutants, such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, radium, selenium, and other metals, are integral components of fine particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants. [Wow. They actually made a statement)
• The metal content of fine particulate matterhas been linked tocannot be attributed as causative of cardiovascular public health impacts in epidemiological and other studies (e.g. Zanobetti et al., 2009).
• In a recent population-based health impact assessment, particulate matter emitted directly from coal-fired power plants was estimated to account for an average of $3.7 billion' of public health damages each year (NRC, 2010).
• Environmental impacts of power plant hazardous air pollutant emissions include acidification of the environment, bioaccumulation of toxic metals, contamination of riven, lakes, and oceans, reduced visibility due to haze, and degradation of buildings and culturally important monuments.
=========================
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf
I edited it to show what I think of words like can and could...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
DanG 1
So you just changed all the positive words to negative words. So clever.
How can you justify changing "has been linked to" to "cannot be attributed as a causitive agent" and keep a straight face?
Let me guess, you're going to say, "Correlation does not imply causation." Well that's true. But do you think medical journals publish papers that don't show statistically significant results? Or is Al Gore's influence so broad that he's corrupted medical science, too?
- Dan G
How can you justify changing "has been linked to" to "cannot be attributed as a causitive agent" and keep a straight face?
Let me guess, you're going to say, "Correlation does not imply causation." Well that's true. But do you think medical journals publish papers that don't show statistically significant results? Or is Al Gore's influence so broad that he's corrupted medical science, too?
- Dan G
rushmc 23
DanGSo you just changed all the positive words to negative words. So clever.
How can you justify changing "has been linked to" to "cannot be attributed as a causitive agent" and keep a straight face?
Let me guess, you're going to say, "Correlation does not imply causation." Well that's true. But do you think medical journals publish papers that don't show statistically significant results? Or is Al Gore's influence so broad that he's corrupted medical science, too?
You nailed the question!!!
HOW have they been linked???
Subjectlively??
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,132
>Another study?
>Based on what?
Biology. Epidemiology. Case studies. Air sample analysis. Spectrography. Geology.
>But this lung group works hand in hand with the epa to push an agenda based
> on feelings as much as anything
There are over a hundred cited studies supporting this paper. And you push your anti-wind agenda based on you not liking how wind turbines SOUND!
>So, show me what this "study" bases its "conclusions" on and I will take a look
Here is the first page of references. Will get you the rest as I have time.
================
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. Toxic Substances Portal: Toxicological Profiles. Washington. DC. USA: ATSDR. Web Link: http/Avww.atsdr.cdc.govitoxprotiles/index.asr) [Accessed: 3 February 20111
Atkinson R. 1991. Atmospheric lifetimes of dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. The Science of the Total Environment 104(I-2):17-33.
Axelrad DA Bellinger DC. Ryan LM. Woodruff TJ. 2007. Dose-response relationship of prenatal mercury exposure and IQ: An integrative analysis of epidemiologic data. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115(4): 609-615.
Babey SH. Hastert TA Meng Y-Y. Brown ER. 2007. Low-Income Californians Bear Unequal Burden of Asthma. Policy Brief-UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. (PB2007-1): 1-7.
Bateson TF. Schwartz J. 2008. Children's response to air pollutants. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A. 71(3):238-243.
Bell ML Dominici F. Ebisu K. Zeger SL Samet JM.. 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in PM2.5 chemical composition in the United States for health effects studies. Environmental Health Perseaives 1 1 5(7):989-995.
Bose-O'Reilly S. McCarty KM. Steckling N. Lettmeier B. 2010. Mercury Exposure and Children's Health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 40(8):186-215.
Brook RD. Franklin B. Cascio W. Hong Y. Howard G. Lipsett M. Luepker R. Mittleman M. Samet J. Smith SC Jr. Tager I. 2004. American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement – air pollution and cardiovascular disease. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the AHA. Circulation 109:2655-2671.
Carta P. Fiore C. Alinovi R. Ibba A. Tocco MG. Aru G. Carta R. Girei E. Mutti A. Lucchini R. Randaccio FS. 2003. Sub-Clinical Neurobehavioral Abnormalities Associated with Low Level of Mercury Exposure through Fish Consumption. NeuroToxicology. 24(4-5):6I7-623.
Carter JD. Ghio AJ. Samet JM. Devlin RB. 1997. Cytokine Production by Human Airway Epithelial Cells after Exposure to an Air Pollution Particle Is Metal-Dependent. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 146(2): 180-188.
CASAC (Clean Air Science Advisory Committee). 2010. CASAC Review of Policy Assessment for the Review of the PM NAAQS –Second External Review Draft (June 2010).
Casals-Casas C. Desvergne B. 2011. Endocrine disruptors: from endocrine to metabolic disruption. Annual Reviews of Physiology 73:135-162.
Chuang KJ. Chan CC. Su TC. Lin LY. Lee CT. 2007. Associations between particulate sulfate and organic carbon exposures and heart rate variability in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular diseases. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49(6):610-617.
Clang L Goodman P. Sinclair H. Dockery DW. 2002. Effect of air pollution control on death rates in Dublin. Ireland: an intervention shut. Lancet UW93411 1710-1714
>Based on what?
Biology. Epidemiology. Case studies. Air sample analysis. Spectrography. Geology.
>But this lung group works hand in hand with the epa to push an agenda based
> on feelings as much as anything
There are over a hundred cited studies supporting this paper. And you push your anti-wind agenda based on you not liking how wind turbines SOUND!
>So, show me what this "study" bases its "conclusions" on and I will take a look
Here is the first page of references. Will get you the rest as I have time.
================
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. Toxic Substances Portal: Toxicological Profiles. Washington. DC. USA: ATSDR. Web Link: http/Avww.atsdr.cdc.govitoxprotiles/index.asr) [Accessed: 3 February 20111
Atkinson R. 1991. Atmospheric lifetimes of dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. The Science of the Total Environment 104(I-2):17-33.
Axelrad DA Bellinger DC. Ryan LM. Woodruff TJ. 2007. Dose-response relationship of prenatal mercury exposure and IQ: An integrative analysis of epidemiologic data. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115(4): 609-615.
Babey SH. Hastert TA Meng Y-Y. Brown ER. 2007. Low-Income Californians Bear Unequal Burden of Asthma. Policy Brief-UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. (PB2007-1): 1-7.
Bateson TF. Schwartz J. 2008. Children's response to air pollutants. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A. 71(3):238-243.
Bell ML Dominici F. Ebisu K. Zeger SL Samet JM.. 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in PM2.5 chemical composition in the United States for health effects studies. Environmental Health Perseaives 1 1 5(7):989-995.
Bose-O'Reilly S. McCarty KM. Steckling N. Lettmeier B. 2010. Mercury Exposure and Children's Health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 40(8):186-215.
Brook RD. Franklin B. Cascio W. Hong Y. Howard G. Lipsett M. Luepker R. Mittleman M. Samet J. Smith SC Jr. Tager I. 2004. American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement – air pollution and cardiovascular disease. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the AHA. Circulation 109:2655-2671.
Carta P. Fiore C. Alinovi R. Ibba A. Tocco MG. Aru G. Carta R. Girei E. Mutti A. Lucchini R. Randaccio FS. 2003. Sub-Clinical Neurobehavioral Abnormalities Associated with Low Level of Mercury Exposure through Fish Consumption. NeuroToxicology. 24(4-5):6I7-623.
Carter JD. Ghio AJ. Samet JM. Devlin RB. 1997. Cytokine Production by Human Airway Epithelial Cells after Exposure to an Air Pollution Particle Is Metal-Dependent. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 146(2): 180-188.
CASAC (Clean Air Science Advisory Committee). 2010. CASAC Review of Policy Assessment for the Review of the PM NAAQS –Second External Review Draft (June 2010).
Casals-Casas C. Desvergne B. 2011. Endocrine disruptors: from endocrine to metabolic disruption. Annual Reviews of Physiology 73:135-162.
Chuang KJ. Chan CC. Su TC. Lin LY. Lee CT. 2007. Associations between particulate sulfate and organic carbon exposures and heart rate variability in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular diseases. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49(6):610-617.
Clang L Goodman P. Sinclair H. Dockery DW. 2002. Effect of air pollution control on death rates in Dublin. Ireland: an intervention shut. Lancet UW93411 1710-1714
rushmc 23
this is just like your health study regarding those wind turbines
that went well for you huh
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Thanks for the reply.
Can you comment on my main point, restated a number of times now, that you are presuming disasterous effects of climate change policies, with no supporting evidence?
- Dan G
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites