Coal Is Unhealthy, No Really!

By: Evan M
Published On: 3/27/2008 10:26:24 AM

Apparently, working with and using coal is unhealthy. While not a surprise, it is always good to have a reminder.
According to Hendryx, as coal production increases, so does the incidence of chronic illness. Coal-processing chemicals, equipment powered by diesel engines, explosives, toxic impurities in coals, and even dust from uncovered coal trucks can cause environmental pollution that could have a negative affect on public health.

According to Hendryx, the data show that people in coal mining communities

   * have a 70 percent increased risk for developing kidney disease.
   * have a 64 percent increased risk for developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) such as emphysema.
   * are 30 percent more likely to report high blood pressure (hypertension). - Science Daily


An interesting parallel can be drawn between coal and cigarettes. The fact that cigarettes were bad for you was known and proven for decades before constant repetition of the message and tidal waves of evidence started to impact the rate of smoking in America. It now appears that coal may follow a similar path in the public mind.

The case for coal has always been an economic one. It is a "cheaper" source of energy and adds jobs to the local economies that are otherwise suffering. The evidence presented today demonstrates that the true economic costs of coal are much higher. Coal communities suffer greater healthcare costs, and given the average incomes of these communities, it is the state and the taxpayers that are much more likely to pickup these healthcare costs in the long run. In effect, the coal companies are incurring long-term costs (healthcare externalities) without paying for them.

When the true cost of coal, in environmental impact, health impact and lost alternative opportunities, is accounted for, it becomes clear that better solutions are not only healthier, they are actually cheaper for Virginia in the long-run.  


Comments



That's an interesting comparison (Eric - 3/27/2008 2:56:24 PM)
between coal and cigarettes.  The model is in place and been shown to work to a degree - there are still a lot of people who smoke and a lot of resistance to no smoking laws.  But I don't think we can wage a couple of decades battle to get to the point where cigarette smoking is today.  So the question is can we take that model and cut it by a factor of 10 or so?


Sure, appeal to the wallet (Evan M - 3/27/2008 3:11:25 PM)
The key to winning this fight is putting it in terms people of Virginia understand and accept. Beauty and clean air are abstract, higher taxes and lower life expectancy are not.

If we use more coal, we will have to subsidize more healthcare in coal country.

If we use more coal, our taxes will go up in order to help pad Dominions profits.

Coal is not less expensive, it is priced incorrectly.



Clean air is far from abstract (Lowell - 3/27/2008 3:14:29 PM)
But I agree with you that we need to appeal on a variety of different levels: economic, national security, environment, etc.