[*BCM*] Roll Against Coal! Nov 13 bike ride to Salem

[Jim Leonard]

I do know it's an advertisement.  My problem first and foremost is it should make some logical sense beyond physical sentence structure (although some fail even on that).  But what was written makes about as much sense as saying "The wheels on my bicycle turn 5 revolutions which is really fast".  

The other issue that I didn't bring up was the complete non-sequitor that as a large producer of CO2 they are poisoning of people.  Yes they produce CO2 because they are burning things, that's what happens.  But the CO2 isn't toxic, it's some of the other pollutants but those quantities aren't covered at all.  Nor is the relative relevence of the quantities / toxicities of those compounds vs other sources.  The writer is either hoping you'll make the leap from one to the other without seeing that you've been duped or that the writer was duped himself.

--jim

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:49:41PM -0500, Patrick Kelleher-Calnan wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I agree that activists could stand to provide better information -
> specifically your point about the lack of a time frame for some of the
> statistics - you should recognize the type of communication you're dealing
> with.  This is an advertisement for an event, not a policy paper or article
> in a periodical, and it's already a little on the long side.  The activists
> are trying to get as many people as possible out to an event which they hope
> will build political pressure to change Massachusetts' sources of
> electricity.  It's not really the best space to go into detail about green
> energy in general and this power plant in particular (though you're right to
> expect that they have this sort of information *somewhere*).  And they do
> cite a credible source (2001 HSPH study), though if this was an article in a
> newspaper, an academic article, a Greenpeace policy recommendation, or even
> Wikipedia, you'd hope the citation would be more clear.  Finally, I
> definitely find it problematic that they don't provide any proposal on what
> we should do to replace that power source, but the question of what the
> 'real costs (financial, environmental, political, etc)' of replacing this
> plant with another source is something that will probably take months and
> thousands of dollars to actually answer.
> 
> Best,
> Patrick
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jim Leonard <jim_bcm at xuth.net> wrote:
> 
> > ARRRGH!!!  Why must protest groups use such horrible nonsensical statistics
> > to promote their causes?  Even for causes that are completely legitimate the
> > facts that are presented routinely make no sense.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:01:47PM -0500, Bikes Not Bombs wrote:
> > > WHY?
> > > The Salem Harbor Coal Plant has negative impacts on people and
> > > environment. Salem Harbor is Massachusetts' third largest contributor
> > > of carbon emissions
> >
> > Well, third largest single entity (assuming this is true), thus arguably
> > low hanging fruit.  But it's also the 4th largest power plant in MA.  What
> > is its efficiency?
> >
> >
> > > , and damages local ecosystems through waste
> > > discharge into the air and the Atlantic. There are 100,000 people who
> > > live within 3 miles of this plant, and these people are directly
> > > impacted by the plant. In 2001 The Harvard School of Public Health
> > > preformed a study that estimated that Salem Harbor and its sister
> > > plant, Brayton Point, cause 159 premature deaths, 43,000 asthma
> > > attacks and upper respiratory irritation in 300,000 people across New
> > > England.
> >
> > Over what duration?  Without that these numbers are completely meaningless.
> >  Even with that, what is a "premature death"?  You're using asthma attack as
> > a discrete event.  Most people who have asthma attacks have something about
> > them that cause multiple attacks over time.  Am I reading that this is also
> > the single cause of "upper respiratory irritation" huge numbers of people?
> >
> > You're also conjoining Salem Harbor power plant with the Brayton Point
> > power plant in these non-statistics.  So even if the statistics themselves
> > made sense they wouldn't directly implicate Salem Harbor.
> >
> > You also fail to provide sources, preferably reliable sources.
> >
> > Assuming that all of the above were fixed, a rational person would also
> > want to know what the real costs (financial, environmental, political, etc)
> > of the alternatives.  Yes it's a 60 year old plant with some modern
> > pollution controls bolted on but how does that compare with trashing the
> > current plant, and building something new.  Include in the previous question
> > all of the electric transmission infrastructure.  What about the fuel
> > transportation infrastructure?
> >
> > I'm not saying your cause is without merit.  I'm just saying that your
> > message sucks.
> >
> > --jim
> > _______________________________________________
> > Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> > list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> > http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> > To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org