Talk:Health and environmental impact of the coal industry/Archive 1

Info
I eliminated from the main article the following reference:

Gail Charnley, "Assessing and managing methylmercury risks associated with power plant mercury emissions in the United States" url=http://pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16915194

I googled Gail Charnley, Ph.D., and found the following:

"Possible New CPSC Head Said to Have Industry Ties,"

According to that article, she has written op-eds on behalf of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices - which is funded by utilities, railroads, and mining companies.

I also found a result where she is associated with a think tank that takes money from ExxonMobil:



In the PubMed cite, she doesn't disclose any relevant financial relationships. In 2004, she wrote a letter minimizing the human testing of pesticides, where she didn't disclose that it had been funded by pesticide makers.

Charnley has written other articles in defense of the power plant industry, seeking to minimize their impact on mercury emissions. So I've eliminated her cite because it is not NPOV. Jmkleeberg (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Iowa testimony
Moved to article Coal power in the United States, where it fits better than in a section of environmental effects of coal mining. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion displays lack of neutrality
It is hardly "neutral" in an article to delete references to a qualified PhD simply because that PhD has been targeted by environmental extremists as allegedly receiving funding from an oil company. Let's be a little more suspicious of this entire article as a result. It does not include arguments on both sides of the debate.

1990 - 2008 mean global temperature increased just 0.07 degrees C. This is a period which should be "benefiting" from more than 100 years of exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels and an alleged 40% increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Where is the catastrophic global warming that was predicted?

Gone the way of all hoaxes I'm afraid. But not before governments around the world have collectively spent hundreds of billions of dollars on nonsensical scientific research, based on environmental politically-motivated lies.

Which is worse: a scientist being funded by an energy company to publish the truth, or a scientist being paid with your tax dollars to continue covering up bald-faced scientific nonsense? Olsonjs444 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Radiation effects of coal usage
Changed the erroneous claim that coal combustion produces more radiation than nuclear power generation, because John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D, Professor Emeritus of Medical Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-discoverer of Uranium-233, has stated: Gofman, John W. 1981. Radiation and human health. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, pp. 575-577.
 * “It is widely claimed that coal-fired power plants release more natural radioactivity to the environment than do nuclear plants. This claim is fraudulent. After looking at the problem realistically, we will find that nuclear power generation puts 35 to 81 times more of the naturally radioactive nuclides on the surface of the earth than does coal power.”

Others have reached similar conclusions.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Info?
Waste products including uranium, thorium, and other radioactive and heavy metal contaminants? Coal mining? Sniper120 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These were all included in the calculations by Gofman cited in the preceeding section. They are traces, generally controlled by the same pollution control mechanisms used to control particulate matter (when they are controlled). Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
This article is clearly one-sided ans written to show that coal use is harmful to the environment. There is no doubt that coal mining affects the landscape, but coal combustion is not necessarily the cause of negative environmental effects, it depens on the technology employed (for example scrubbers). Coal combustion by-products, like fly ash, are not toxic in general and their utilization as secondary building mterials is beneficial for the environment. To summarize this article does not seem to meet the criteria of wikipedia articles.Saba50 (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was Climate change mitigation scenarios removed?
Why was Climate change mitigation scenarios removed? It relates to that section. 99.190.87.246 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Related, but not relevant. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This Relevance is a measure of how pertinent, connected, or applicable something is. To say "not" is extremism, in the Paul Collier The Plundered Planet sense.  141.218.36.50 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's not relevant to this article where you placed it.  I have some doubts that the mitigation in your most recent addition is climate change mitigation rather than other environmental mitigation, but I'm will to let it go for the moment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin you agree ("Exactly") that "not" is "not" is extremism, in the Paul Collier The Plundered Planet sense? 99.181.150.29 (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you haven't re-edited your comments, I was agreeing with your first sentence. Your second sentence no sense makes, as I am not willing to accept Paul Collier's redefinitions of common terms.  I doubt that Wikipedia would be willing to accept such redefinitions, but you'd have to try it to find out.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To what, if anything, is your comment Assuming you haven't re-edited your comments, ... in reference? Let's add clarity to Talk.  99.190.85.146 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, add scenarios...  141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you agree; you're the same person. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, in more detail; the relevance of Climate change mitigation scenarios to this article is only through Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Was Fossil fuel phase out intended? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also, my revert comment was wrong. It's hard to keep track of all your errors which are either intentional or show a disrespect for the English language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource, regarding International Energy Agency ... "6.3 °F (3.5°C) potential long-term rise in global temperatures, ..."
Rising Use of Coal Prompts Warning OCTOBER 20, 2011 by JAMES HERRON; excerpt ... See Climate change mitigation scenarios and Climate change mitigation, geoengineering, Planetary boundaries, predicted effects of global warming by 2100, Politics of global warming, Effects of global warming currently, etc ... Martin Ferguson, Minister for Resources and Energy (Australia) was chairman of the meeting. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved to Environmental impact of the coal industry since I believe that the 'the' is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Environmental impact of coal mining and burning → Environmental impact of coal industry – The common nominator of coal mining and burning is coal industry. Shorter and better title. Beagel (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The health effects of fine particles and ozone is the most salient feature of coal burning without the use of available controls, and should lead the article, not be buried
The health effects of fine particle and ozone pollution caused by coal burning without the use of available pollution control equipment is the most salient feature of this article, and should lead the article, not be buried several levels down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested reorganization.
The current organization by country gives up more than it adds. Science and earth's atmosphere have no borders. Even regulations would be better discussed within a regulation section than by country. A better organization would be by topic:

I. Immediate costs in lost lives and health;

Atmospheric

--poisoning from burning

--from mining

--from transport

Solid pollutants released into drinking water

II. Greenhouse gasses

III. Mitigation achievable by employing current Best Available Technology

IV. International and Governmental responses for the protection of health, life, and future sustainability.

-- Regulatory

-- Fostering less-polluting energy alternatives

Ocdnctx (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In "Effects of mining" section, should mountaintop removal be mentioned?
Should mountaintop removal be mentioned?

Ocdnctx (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Available technology can amelioriate some of the environmental effects of coal
About 60% of coal generation plants have installed environmental protection devices which have saved countless lives. An example is Flue-gas desulfurization. Current regulations in the EPA would require the remaining 40% to adopt such protections, saving many more lives every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Added Neutrality Template
The article as written simply does not adhere to any standard of neutrality on this topic. I honestly do not know where to begin pointing out problems of both tone and content. The opening reads like a petition to ban the use of coal, the article makes it sound as if coal plants are belching out columns of black death as there apparently has not been any change (or just changes that are supposedly ineffectual, but I'm not shown any numbers, so I can't tell) since the first coal-powered plant opened its doors.

Look, I'm not someone trying to deny that there's issues with the environment or even claim that coal is the cleanest, best resource to use ever--but at the same time, this is not the place to pursue an agenda in either direction. This article most definitely pursues an agenda.

Please do not remove the neutrality template until this has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.23 (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you haven't provided specific examples of bias to support your claim, your posting of a Neutrality template to the article amounts to little more than drive-by tagging. The scope of any Wikipedia article is driven exactly by its title, which is for this one, as a reminder, the environmental impact of the coal industry and its chief product, coal.  If you're seeing a lot of negative impacts in the article that have been created by the coal industry and the use of its chief product, that would be due to the coal industry actually generating a lot of negative impacts.  Identify specific examples of false or misleading material in the article and those sections can be fixed, but if don't provide any then the drive-by tag will obviously be removed.  Back up your claim immediately. HarryZilber (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, get off your high horse ordering people about. Secondly, that's a fairly backwards way of doing it.  If you notice the phrasing of the tag, it is basically a request for people to come look at this article and determine it's neutrality.  Removing it without giving a chance for people to weigh in is a highly suspect and reactionary move.  I will do something for you though.  I'll show you a discussion of the environmental impact of coal, but done well. http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf
 * Additionally, I did point out one major issue with this article in that it paints the picture that nothing has changed with respect to coal usage since the industrial revolution. Beyond that, there is a lot of unsourced information, information without context (so, what exactly is the concentration of HCN form burning coal?  Can it actually be produced in absence of ammonia?  Is the presence of coal fire plants actually a causative factor in all of those deaths an illnesses or merely a contributing factor (remember, correlation is not causation), and if it is a correlated factor is it proper to describe it as a cause, which happens in this article?  etc.).   What is the general percent composition of coal-fired plants' emissions? There's just a listing of nasty sounding chemicals and the statement that they're there, with the implication that they are always present and that all coal is the same.  I'm fairly surprised that burning anthracite can be lumped in with lignite in a serious consideration of the topic.  While that is hyperbole in that few large scale operations use anthracite, it's not when you consider that many use bituminous coal and not lignite which all of the really, really bad numbers (that are still not present in this treatment) are associated with.  Take the statement that coal-fired power plants produce twice the CO2 as NG per kilowatt-hour.  This statement is only true if you compare one specific NG process with using lignite.  When you look at other NG processes compared to bituminous coal powered plants, you'll find that using NG only results in a 20% reduction in CO2.
 * Speaking of CO2, I'm frankly astonished to see carbonic acid mentioned as a part of acid rain (also, there's not different "forms" of acid rain, there's just rain with a pH of less than 5--different chemcials can make this happen, which overwhelmingly are SO4 and NO3 http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap13.html#82875)
 * I'm also entirely consumed with the idea that whoever wrote this has no actual understanding of the chemistry (as evidenced by lack of discussion of % composition, ignoring the differences between different types of coal), science in general (the recurring equivocation of causation along with other problems), or medicine.
 * To drive this point home, let's look at the section about radiation exposure. This has practically no reason for existing.  If we go to the very same source cited (number 13), we'll find this quotation: "Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation." -- it's inclusion is pure FUD, just like the carbonic acid part, the listing off of horribad chemicals without putting them in context, later on spending three paragraphs talking about methylmercury without once putting a description to the amounts beyond "new heights"--after the unsourced claim that these new heights were caused by coal-fired plants.  Although, at the very least the final sentence actually bothers hedging the topic.  And this *is* me assuming good faith, because I'm assuming that this was assembled out of ignorance and with good intentions to educate and not assembled from a point of knowledge with the intent to deceive.
 * In the next section, I'm led down a merry chase that assumes that every time and place coal is found you'll find pyrite and it'll become sulfuric acid--all 100% of it. Every bit of pyrite will turn into sulfuric acid and all we have to do to make this happen is uncover it.  My but were we able to achieve that level of efficiency in other reactions, we'd have a helluva power source on our hands.  Again, I'm not discounting that this sort of thing happens, but how often and how much (properly sourced) is very important to include.  Amusingly, methane is mentioned now as a negative, when a mixture that is primarily methane (natural gas) was mentioned positively earlier, and ignores how many coal mining operations either capture methane or burn it off, admittedly this is far more true of underground mines than strip mines. Speaking of, the impact of underground mines on hydrology is mostly ignored getting only a couple of sentences in the next section (which is far more environmentally impactful than some specious pointing to radioactivity of ash).
 * I'm just going to stop here because this sort of thing continues throughout the entire article, leaving no section untouched. Look, coal is a dirty technology that does have a profound impact.  I'm not denying that.  What I am saying is that this article does not describe those impacts in a legitimate, encyclopedic manner. Even still, the way this article is written is a disservice to highlighting the issues with using coal as a power source because of the tone throughout it because the high level of FUD makes it easy to dismiss, but go ahead, delete the tag.  Assume I'm just some jerk who did a "drive-by taggin".67.142.178.20 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The earlier post never implied 'some jerk', and its good to see you've provided constructive criticism on some points in the article. A further major improvement needed relates to coal industry responsible deaths, which is loosely related as "[a shortening of] nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States", citing a 2004 MSNBC report.  This U.S.-only figure is significantly smaller than world-wide WHO derived figures of about 1 M deaths annually worldwide in 2008 due to coal particulates pollution.
 * You can label that FUD if you want, but I call it a reality check on one of the true costs of the coal industry. I also speak from the knowledge of personally witnessing coal-produced smog so thick in the '50s and '60s that numerous neighbors and others were stricken with respiratory ailments. But maybe that's only FUD. HarryZilber (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think that the whole article is POV, there are certainly some problems with the neutrality of the tone, which is time-to-time also non-encyclopedic. It definitely needs more scientific sources. Although it has more than 40 references, there are lot of paragraphs or even sections without proper referencing. The structure of different impacts is fine in general. At the same time, 'Coal phase-out and climate change' does not belongs here as a) not coal specific; and b) already disccused in different articles. Also, as this article is about coal industry impacts in general, the section about countries (in most of cases including only a link to the country specific articles) does not needed. Impacts are several in all countries and if there are country specific issues, they should be discussed in the country-specific articles. Beagel (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Source of WHO report?
Hi! The claim "In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and other organizations calculated that coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world" is backed with a link to this website. It would be nice with a reference to the actual WHO report, but I've been unable to find this. Just other sites mentioning the same figure. Does anyone have any idea? /skagedaltalk 20:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

what about coal miners diseases?
what about coal miners diseases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.34.158 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC) niola is th bossssssss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.63.233 (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

what about climate change/global warming
The elephant in the room, why left out?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Article focuses on coal mining and not what happens after that. So it's not quite the elephant in the room. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Environmental impact of the coal industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013144159/http://www.coal.gov.uk:80/resources/cleanercoaltechnologies/CoalMineandbedmethane.cfm to http://www.coal.gov.uk/resources/cleanercoaltechnologies/CoalMineandbedmethane.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Environmental impact of the coal industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515231146/http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf to http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205103749/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clb.org.hk/public/contents/news?revision_id=19324&item_id=19316
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423220800/http://www.occupationalhazards.com:80/Issue/Article/38114/Breathing_Easy_Respiratory_Protection_in_Coal_Mines.aspx to http://www.occupationalhazards.com/Issue/Article/38114/Breathing_Easy_Respiratory_Protection_in_Coal_Mines.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115091508/http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf to http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental impact of the coal industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711010737/http://www.epa.gov:80/crossstaterule/ to http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians, I want to add a new section named "the current state of coal." I have made an example of what I wanted to add, but I am not sure if it is ready for the article. Would you be able to take a look? Thank you for your help.