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

[David Bryant]

Jim,

Had to answer the "CO2" is not toxic statement.  No. not directly or  
in ambient concentrations.  But over large scales it now and will  
continue to be increasingly toxic to our planet and life as we know  
it.  Just one example is the increasing [CO2] reducing the pH of sea  
water and altering certain marine ecosystems http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/FAQacidity.html

But I digress... I agree with Patrick that this is mostly a plea for  
action for those who probably already know the major theme of the  
issue "burning coal is bad".  As a rhetorical argument against coal  
fired steam plants and their effect on the Planet?  Who F'ing cares?   
 From my viewpoint the primary statistics were provided clearly and  
accurately (eventually);

where and when do we meet?

Other than that I don't need any further reason to protest coal in any  
form.  The extraction, transportation and processing of coal for  
electrical production has no merit other than cheap, reliable energy  
production.  The costs however are far greater than $0.12 kwh:

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/when-mountains-move.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-21-092.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25powell.html

Sign me up!

David M Bryant
Fangorn Productions LLC
11 Dix Rd
Ipswich, MA 01938

978-697-6123

On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:

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