While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> 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.

Are you suggesting that I, too, am a goof? It's certainly arguable
given the time I've put into this discussion.

>> 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.

That, I can agree with.

>> 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.

My figures come from the US Department of Energy, as reported by
mindfully.org. What are yours but opinion and hyperbole?

Asserting that you're still right even if figures prove you wrong
isn't science. It's dogma... again.

> 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.

This statement proves nothing except that you're too busy to back up
your assertions.

--
Derek

If a kiss speaks volumes, it is seldom a first edition.