At 06:51 PM 7/3/01, Andy wrote:
>On 4 Jul 2001, at 1:07, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>
> > At 15:09 3-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > >Before I take the time to go over the results of scientific analysis
> > >of claims such as these, I'd like to ask one question. Do you accept
> > >the validity of scientific analysis? Would you agree that claims of
> > >death or damage need to be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny?
> >
> > Of course I do.
> >
> > You'll have to come up with some very convincing evidence, though.
> > Let's say a report claims that in a town with a nuclear power plant
> > nearby, the cancer rate is three times as high as the national
> > average, and the power plant is blamed for it. You'll have a hard time
> > convincing me that the higher rate is just a coincidence, and not
> > related to the presence of that nuclear power plant.
>
>Now look at the cancer rates arround a COAL fired power station..
>over EIGHT times, in some cases, the national average. And that's
>before we consider the CO� and other pollutants it spews...
In fact, burning coal releases a surprising amount of radioactivity into
the air from radioisotopes that were in the coal . . .
-- Ronn! :)
