There is a ton of scientific studies out there. The world health organisation has a page about air-pollution you can take a look at to begin with: https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution
Thank you for the links.
They prove exactly what I said perfectly.
When I look at the first link the sub headlines on the first page are:
Air pollution levels remain dangerously high in many parts of the world. New data from WHO shows that 9 out of 10 people breathe air containing high levels of pollutants.
WHO estimates that around 7 million people die every year from exposure to polluted air.
Ambient air pollution alone caused some 4.2 million deaths in 2016, while household air pollution from cooking with polluting fuels and technologies caused an estimated 3.8 million deaths in the same period.They Bundle coal in with industry ( which by extrapolation including the building of EV's and filthy proces for components like battery chemistry) and they make mention of Cooking with biomass in the 3rd world but I could NOT find anything that specifically and uniquely pointed to coal even after doing a site search. The closest match was again using it as a fuel source in the 3rd world which closing power plants in the first wold is not going to affect in any way.
I can only assume if coal were such a terrible killer it would be a headline with the numbers for the 3rd world cooking.
As there was nothing I could find unique to Coal, at very least I have to call into question the measuring process and the parroted mantras it is so bad. If they had specific and verifiable numbers, I have no doubt they would be right there.
If you know of parts of that site that specifically address coal from power station generation, I'd be interested to read it.
The second link again proves my point.
All ESTIMATES from various ( green biased) organisations that state something as irrefutable gospel but no explanation of how these ESTIMATES were calculated nor the source .
Tobacco industry once said smoking was not harmful as well so forgive me if I just take things which logic and experience tell me is questionable with blind and unquestionable faith.
Sorry, ZERO credibility in my book. Like I said, If I put up a link that said unreliables killed so many people per year, the first thing would be what's the source, how did they calculate it? where were the surveys done, what safety procedures were in place and so it would go so it cuts both ways.
For example, Iaea estimated less than 4000 premature deaths from Chernobyl, while a more commonly cited figure is 30000. In either case it's peanuts compared to premature deaths caused by air-pollution from coal power _every year_.
My points proven again!
1, figures from biased sources cannot be trusted without verification,
2. You are saying one number is insignificant to the other when the number you favour is also an estimate from a biased source with no explanation of how it was calculated !
Why are nuke deaths peanuts compared to coal power when we haven't even established a credible figure, just "estimates".
If you look at the civilian nuclear energy industry as a whole, and calculate the average deaths per kWh produced, nuclear is even safer than solar power according to some:
Yep, there is always a way to spin numbers and statistics to say what you want.
How about we crunch the numbers for the cost of cleanup and the lives lost in doing so for coal plant accidents and Nuke accidents.
Lets give the Nuke side a head start and we'll just include Chernobyl, Fukishima and 3 Mile island. You can heap together all the accidents on record for coal.
Lets look at all the radiation released into the oceans directly attributable to coal through unique isotopes that could have come from no where else as against those that are only found in nuke reactors and are not naturally occurring.
Lets have a look at the amount of people evacuated and displaced by nuke accidents as against those evacuated, displaces and never allowed to return to their homes from coal accidents . How about how many towns and citys are permanently off limits due to the accidents and emissions from coal plants compared to nuke plants.
The old "air travel is the safest form of transport" crap won't wash with me. You can shoot that down just by changing the parameters from miles traveled to number of journeys taken and then planes don't looks so hot. Clearly the same with the nuke debate.
Maybe we could look at how many tons of coal ash lies in unuseable stockpiles of containers and is buried in mountains for eternity because a drum of the stuff could potentialy wipe out thousands of acres of land, poison water tables and lay waste to everything it contaminated. Coal is used in concrete, roads and other building materials and can easily not only be disposed of but put to practical use.
Yes, coal ash IS radio active but so are bananas and just like bananas, coal ash does not contain hot particles that if ingested have a 99% of causing a cancer that will kill you in a painful and indignant death.
I really don't know why people try to defend something like nuke. The green washed are always going on about " The children and future generations" Crap yet no regard is paid to this in the nuke support.
I'd rather only have power during the day when the sun was shining than have a Nuke plant anywhere in the country giving free power 24/7.