   Al Gores Global Warming movie will destroy our economy!!!
Fox news proposes the idea that Al Gores new movie about global warming could destroy our economy.Quote:This weekend on Fox News, host David Asman asked his guests to discuss the following question: "If people buy into [Al Gore’s] global warming hysteria, will it put him in the White House and our economy on the skids?" Steve Forbes answered yes, and called Gore’s new movie "a real recipe for more socialist regulation."I love how these assbags pretend that ecological preservation is a bad thing. I'd love to see what they thought if they had to live next to a coal power plant and breathe pure carcinogens 24/7."Buy a new house somewhere else!""I can't afford it, because we're bankrupt due to fighting cancer in my father!""Oh well. Tough luck. I never had to deal with that because my parents were rich and owned a mansion 500 miles away from anything like that. FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET!!!"Idiots.   
Quote:Original post by MithrandirFox news proposes the idea that Al Gores new movie about global warming could destroy our economy.Quote:This weekend on Fox News, host David Asman asked his guests to discuss the following question: "If people buy into [Al Gore’s] global warming hysteria, will it put him in the White House and our economy on the skids?" Steve Forbes answered yes, and called Gore’s new movie "a real recipe for more socialist regulation."I love how these assbags pretend that ecological preservation is a bad thing. I'd love to see what they thought if they had to live next to a coal power plant and breathe pure carcinogens 24/7."Buy a new house somewhere else!""I can't afford it, because we're bankrupt due to fighting cancer in my father!""Oh well. Tough luck. I never had to deal with that because my parents were rich and owned a mansion 500 miles away from anything like that. FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET!!!"Idiots.Pff!!  We all know that global climate change is just another hysterical liberal conspiracy.  Just like the theories of evolution, round earth and heliocentrism.;  The grand liberalist enterprise of Canada is not much better with environmental initiatives now that the Conservative party is slowly gaining favour among the populace.That said, the majority of the phone-poll-responding populace are idiots, and a minority of the overall populace vote. We'll see if this overlaps.   ;  I was going to post this yesterday [grin].I think the way Fox News handles themselves is just plain insulting to journalism. They focus on destroying liberals with propoganda and "news" which is an insult to the human race. I can't believe anybody still watches that crap.   ;Quote:Original post by MithrandirI'd love to see what they thought if they had to live next to a coal power plant and breathe pure carcinogens 24/7.not very OT maybe, but what it is you think US coalplants emit that is carcinogetic?   ;Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:Original post by MithrandirI'd love to see what they thought if they had to live next to a coal power plant and breathe pure carcinogens 24/7.not very OT maybe, but what it is you think US coalplants emit that is carcinogetic?Unprocessed coal in the US has uranium 235 in it, which is radioactive. When the coal is burned, it is released into the air and inhaled by people, causing cancer.That's just one source off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.   ;  If a movie can destroy the economy, then a television news network ought to be able to save it. We could look at the FNC caption as simply an admission that they believe that propaganda can make an impact on the world. Regarding emissions from burning coal, it's not the uranium that is the principal worry. It's mercury. Quote:Mercury emissions from power plants are considered the largest anthropogenic source of mercury released to the atmosphere; about 48 tons are emitted annually in the U.S.A. as a result of fossil fuel combustion, mostly from coal-fired power plants. Although the elemental mercury emitted to the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants is not considered harmful, it can chemically transform into a toxic form, methylmercury, that can become concentrated in fish and birds, and from there enter the human body (see U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet, Mercury in the Environment).Mercury Content of Indiana Coals See also: Mercury in the EnvironmentIt's also carbon dioxide and smog. Quote:A typical (500 megawatt) coal plant burns 1.4 million tons of coal each year. There are about 600 U.S. coal plants.Coal pollutes when it is mined, transported to the power plant, stored, and burned. Air pollution: Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions.Wastes generated: Ash, sludge, toxic chemicals, and waste heat create more environmental problems.Fuel supply: Mining, transporting, and storing coal levels mountains and pollutes the land, water, and air. Water use: Coal plants need billions of gallons of cooling water and harm wildlife.Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.And it's also old fashioned corruption. A Toxic Cover-Up?Quote:(CBS) Who is Jack Spadaro? He's a man who's devoted his life to the safety of miners and the safety of people who live near mines.He's an engineer, who until recently was head of the National Mine Health and Safety Academy (MSHA), a branch of the Department of Labor, which trains mining inspectors.But he lost that job last year, after he blew the whistle on what he called a whitewash by the Bush administration of an investigation into a major environmental disaster. Correspondent Bob Simon reports. ”I had never seen anything so corrupt and lawless in my entire career as what I saw regarding interference with a federal investigation of the most serious environmental disaster in the history of the Eastern United States,” says Spadaro. “I've been in government since Richard Nixon. I've been through the Reagan administration, Carter and Clinton. I've never seen anything like this.”What he's talking about is what he calls a government cover-up of an investigation into a disaster 25 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.It happened in October of 2000, when 300 million gallons of coal slurry - thick pudding-like waste from mining operations - flooded land, polluted rivers and destroyed property in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. The slurry contained hazardous chemicals, including arsenic and mercury.“It polluted 100 miles of stream, killed everything in the streams, all the way to the Ohio River,” says Spadaro, who was second in command of the team investigating the accident.The slurry had been contained in an enormous reservoir, called an impoundment, which is owned by the Massey Energy Company. One night, the heavy liquid broke through the bottom of the reservoir, flooded the abandoned coalmines below it and roared out into the streams.Spadaro says the investigators discovered the spill was more than an accident -- it was an accident waiting to happen. During the investigation carried out by Spadaro and his colleagues, it came out that there had been a previous spill in 1994 at the same impoundment. The mining company claimed it had taken measures to make sure it wouldn't happen again, but an engineer working for the company said the problem had not been fixed, and that both he and the company knew another spill was virtually inevitable.“He said, ‘We knew there would be another breakthrough,’” says Spadaro. “We knew. And I asked him how many people in the company knew and he said, ‘Well, at least five people.’"So why didn’t they fix it? “It would have been expensive to find another site. And I think they were willing to take the risk … It was a certainty,” says Spadaro.He says it was a certainty because there was only a very thin layer of rock at the bottom of the reservoir. But that's not what the mining company had told the government.“They told the government that there was a solid coal barrier, at least 70 to 80 feet wide between the mine workings and the bottom of the reservoir,” says Spadaro of the barrier, which is less than 20 feet. “They were misrepresenting the facts … and they knew that. The company knew that and I'm sorry to say I believe some people within the government knew that.”...So, can we move passed the coal issue now? ;Quote:Original post by MithrandirQuote:Original post by EelcoQuote:Original post by MithrandirI'd love to see what they thought if they had to live next to a coal power plant and breathe pure carcinogens 24/7.not very OT maybe, but what it is you think US coalplants emit that is carcinogetic?Unprocessed coal in the US has uranium 235 in it, which is radioactive. When the coal is burned, it is released into the air and inhaled by people, causing cancer.u235 is hardly radioactive, and doesnt cause cancer unless youre standing right next to a block of it. maybe the resulting radon is of any significance, but its created quite slowly and way too diffused by that time for 'living next to' to have any meaning.   ;  Al "Qaeda" Gore obviously hates America. </FoxNews>   ;  @lessbreadim not disputing the evil of coalpower, but the only local effect (thus being applicable to miths complaint about living next to a coalplant) on that list is smog. again, i dont know about US coalplants, but its no rocketscience, neither technically nor economically, to as good as completely eliminate any particle emissions from a combustionprocess of that scale.   