Quantcast

Comments about ‘Readers' forum: Stick to facts’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 9 2011 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
10CC
Bountiful, UT

THIS letter would have you think auto emissions are bad because they emit carbon monoxide, while power plant emissions are fine, because they emit carbon dioxide, alluding to deception by Moench in a larger debate over carbon dioxide and global warming.

The truth is there are many other pollutants in both auto and power plant emissions that are of concern.

As for power plants, read about pecan farmers in Texas having their crops decimated by power plants, specifically by SULPHER dioxide emissions. In Texas they're conducting a war against the EPA, protesting perceived federal overreach, with overtones of carbon dioxide and the global warming debate, but in their opposition to EPA authority Texans appear paralyzed to deal with a polluntant that is outside the global warming debate.

Even if you take carbon dioxide out of the debate, power plants emit other pollutants they vigorously fight having to clean up.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

The letter gets an "F" for science accuracy.

No one is arguing that CO2 is the source of the chemicals causing brain damage. Automobile exhaust contains a complex stew of toxic chemicals created by the incomplete combustion of fuel and air. The yellow-brown smog that hangs over our valley on days like today are testimony to this simple fact.

Moreover, in modern engines the output of carbon dioxide is tremendously greater than the output of carbon monoxide.

Air pollution is bad for us on many levels. Don't confuse the immediate health threats attributable to living in a smog-choked city with the long-term global climate change caused by rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. They are two separate, but equally real issues that require our serious attention.

Esquire
Springville, UT

"carbon dioxide, a benign gas". Like water is benign, until you drown. Maybe you need to stick to the facts and not ignore a serious issue.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Don, there is nothing "benign" about massive amount of Carbon Dioxide.

SuperArcher
Lehi, Utah

I agree, the letter writer gets an "F" in science. It's mindboggling that anyone arguing againstt this is ignoring essencial facts: the entire equation. CO2 is just om part of the entire equation. Sulfur, as I remember, is the bigger and more dangerous component. I think there is one other component but I cannot recall it at this point.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

The better statement should have been. If polution is the cause of all these health problems, why is it that we have more health problems now that attributed to pollution than we did 30 years ago when the air was more polluted?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The Utah association of armchair climatologists does NOT need science to get in the way of a good argument. Remember our mantra, 'we cannot affect the climate, so we don't have to do anything about it'.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

' If polution is the cause of all these health problems, why is it that we have more health problems now that attributed to pollution than we did 30 years ago when the air was more polluted?' - RedShirt | 9:51 a.m. Dec. 9, 2011

And your source from x30 years ago?

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

Most things we read are exaggerated. Such as the 20+ year war on drugs. How much REAL truthful information was told vs myths that perpetuated panic. It is just the way things are. Read the news. Research yourself the truth in it.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Pagan | 11:16 a.m." since you won't believe me anyway (or you won't be able to find the article), maybe this will educate those who are actually looking to learn:

From the Wasatch Front Regional Council and their "Air Quality Newsletter2008" we find that the emissions of everything tracked that we have less pollution being emitted now than we had in 1980. For example in Salt Lake County in 1980 there was about 180 tons/day of vehicle emissions pumped into the atmosphere. By 2010 the report has estimated the emissions to be about 90 tons/day. So, in 30 years the emission were cut in half.

So, how can a reasonable scientist claim that pollution causes specific problems when during the time of decreasing pollution there was an increase in a disease?

Jash
Clearfield, UT

Of course, there's nothing benign about massive amounts of O2 either.

In fact, just about anything taken to excess is harmful. The only reason many "green" technologies are "green" is because of how few are actually in use. As we move to these other technologies we will discover negative effects.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
"So, how can a reasonable scientist claim that pollution causes specific problems when during the time of decreasing pollution there was an increase in a disease? "

Does that account for population change?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "atl134 | 2:59 p.m." let me dumb things down a little bit more for you.

yes, it accounts for population change.

For example, in 1980 when pollution emitted by cars was 2 times as much as it is today there were fewer cars driving around and fewer people, yet respitory diseases were less prevalent (cases per 1000 people). Now, there are more people and more cases of respitory disease (measured in cases per 1000 people). How do you explain that? If pollution from automobiles causes diseases, and you cut the pollution, shouldn't you see a decrease in disease too?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
"How do you explain that? If pollution from automobiles causes diseases, and you cut the pollution, shouldn't you see a decrease in disease too? "

My first guess says it's a matter of developed medicine being better than 30 years ago (i.e. fewer undiagnosed conditions now than there used to be... or possibly overdiagnosed conditions now).

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "atl134 | 8:06 a.m." so, in other words, you don't know. Everything that I have seen shows that the increase in respitory disease in children along the Wasatch Front has more to do with an increase in the number of households where there is at least 1 person who smokes.

It sounds like you are grasping at straws trying to justify your position eventhough there is not any evidence to support your claims.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments