Is Coal Our Friend?

The Armchair Curmudgeon
News&Views
May 19, 2007

Is Science Really Bad: And Coal Good?

No, Alice, you’ve been fed some government hocus pocus again and we shall try to clarify the picture. In so doing, we who inhabit the only wellspring of truth left in the media, are wondering whether there is another reason that the government does not want to do anything about clean air and clean water. Let me ask: In your classroom did you ever learn about research into mind control?

Anyway, what’s the big deal with a little mercury here…a little lead there?

Well, according to the best information I’ve been able to come up with, mercury and lead are not really good for humans. You’ve probably studied that. And it’s suspected that some of these trace elements that are in the air and water work into our bloodstream and wind up concentrated in the brain. And the brain and the blood stream appears to be where they do their nasty work. In fact, if you poke around, you will probably discover a connection between levels of heavy metals in our bloodstream and the incidence of bad things like mental retardation.

Now, Alice, I want to assure you that I’m not saying that there’s a proven link between retardation and other forms of illness and higher concentrations of trace metals in the air and water because I don’t have the proof, but there seem to be disturbing correlations. For example, we do know that mercury and other heavy elements found in the blood do have an affect on human health. We know that much!...

If that’s true, then is it also true that lesser concentrations of mercury and trace elements like lead are less bad? Can your mind be just a little bit affected?

I wonder about that because although people seem somewhat preoccupied with the shape of their butts and having washboard “abs,” there seems to be little concern for what precisely is in the air and water that could at least circumstantially contribute to pernicious conditions…

Consider, for example, what difference would it make if you eat all the greens on your plate and cheerios for breakfast, if your brain is likely to go as a result of pedestrian things like breathing or drinking a glass of water. Not a connection that many people practicing deception would like to make….

But we do have somewhat of a history about how government, with the best information, intervenes on our behalf.

Consider, not too many years ago, the government agency concerned with such affairs came out with OSHA regulations that said that business and industry had to clean up their collective acts. Coal residues and other pollutants had to be recycled and not allowed to pour out into the environment because there was sufficient evidence to suggest that these materials were not really good for your long time well being.. There was a time limit in place for compliance and huge penalties for failure to comply.

Then, dear Alice, President Bush came into office and almost immediately afterwards one of the first things to go as part of Bush’s new Clean Air and Clean Water regs was the rush to implement the provisions of the legislation. Another case of Bush word inversion where bad things wind up seeming good until you read the small print. There is a lot of small print in Bush legislation and not much of it good.

To make a long story short, these regulations were put on hold for another ten years which should allow many more people to fall prey to heavy metal effluents of coal burning and there was a lot of self-induced back patting among the government toadies and then people forgot all about what government was doing to them and not for them.

To make matters even worse, the Bush solution to our energy shortfall and the Clean Water and Clean Air regs was to give permission to his friends in the coal industry to sell coal again. And then, as if by magic, dear Alice, the president’s coffers were filled to the brimming top.

We are told in ad after ad that the “new coal,” is almost devoid of dangerous emissions…
But this is mainly predicated on some of the new coal gasification techniques that vary over the lot being in place. They are not!. And “almost devoid of dangerous emissions” is like saying something is “almost safe” …or not really “too poisonous.”

In fact, the total recycling of coal emissions does not even exist as yet so nobody really knows how that works despite the fact that coal miners and marketers are very aggressive in putting a happy face on a type of fuel whose inherent danger to the human body we continue to underestimate or ignore altogether..

But here’s the stuff they won’t tell you: It is estimated that even with some of the new coal gasification technology in place, something like an additional 20,000 people a year will die. And if that doesn’t cause you to find a nice quiet cave somewhere, think about what isn’t said. What isn’t mentioned, is the number of people who over the long term will fall ill as a result of their exposure to these trace heavy metals and other effluents emitted as a result of the burning of coal.

In other words, Alice, try as the marketers may, coal is not really our friend.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the environmental horror that coal mining represents.
To date, virtually nothing has been done to restore areas stripped clean of coal and left barren as a scar on God’s earth. Such abuses should alarm the supporters of the Right Wing, who must find it difficult to make compatible God’s will with the destruction of the planet.

But it’s not humans alone who should fear the burning of coal. Today, much of the effluents are recycled into the water changing water chemistry and making it uninhabitable or unhealthy for other species who inhabit these areas or use them as breeding grounds. We have seen a loss in shell fish and heavy traces of mercury and other metals in the fish we ingest.

Recently, a warning was issued for our area not to eat fish more than once a week.

That is not a good sign for an area known for its fishing.

Coal burning also contributes to the generation of carbon dioxide that feeds into the air and water. This heats up the water and, according to science, is said to contribute to global warming.

It is expected—according to the estimates—that by 2050, coastal tides may rise as much as a foot or more threatening many areas unless we take positive action to change the outcome. If we are not convinced of the certainty of this data, further studies show that many coastal areas will be totally flooded, and literally inundated, unless we instigate change immediately.

Will this come to pass? Will people react in the way to preserve and protect their environment and consequently protect their futures?

Who can say? Many seem to go along with the government’s view that Global Warming is really only a natural phenomena that has resulted in global heating and cooling over long cycles and that there is no long term adverse on the environment. But we suggest you believe that at your own risk..

Maybe there’s a bit to that that’s true, too, but if you know that one kind of behavior is going to have a serious downside, wouldn’t it make sense to do what’s necessary to try to prevent it especially now that we have scientific proof on our side?

One might think so…but who knows, maybe there is already too much mercury and lead in the air for us to think clearly about it.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon