View Single Post
  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
[email protected] Stevepppp@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Tap Water VS Bottled Water

On Aug 12, 5:41*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
> > On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>
> >> I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
> >> --scott

>
> > Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
> > times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
> > auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? <1%. Who
> > lives in and around cities? > 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
> > lose that one bigtime.

>
> Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.


The other goof strongly suggested that, not I My main argument was
that auto pollution > coal factory pollution. However the levels are
the greatest downwind from a coal factory and as you move away, it
dissipates to lower levels.

> In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
> eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
> Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.


The farther away the better. Upwind the best.

> Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
> carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
> 513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
> be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
> a thousandfold difference.


Let's say your figures are correct .. which I hardly trust. I'm still
right, more people are adversely affected by auto emissions X 1000
fold or more. Nice try.
If I had time, I could prove the math is in my favor. Just figure out
the TRUE number of coal factories versus the 500 million+ autos in use
daily and then multiply each by the average levels of harmful
chemicals.