Dan Troutman — Jul 1 2008 08:26 AM

Without seeing the detailed study, one question comes to mind: How can they link this rare cancer to COAL? If it's solely linked to coal, has there been a corresponding increase in rare cancers within the West Virginia coal mining commmunities as well??

There is no 100% safe industry. OK, so in a certain part of PA various people contract a rare bone cancer at 15/100,000 people per year. For the sake of argument, let's ASSUME that it's caused by being in proximity to coal. Let's assume that there are maybe 200,000 people in the affected area. On average, that means that 30 individuals will contract the bone cancer every year and die. We all die from something. (My condolences go out to the family members for their losses - dying sucks.)
Americans have decided to continue to use the automobile for reliable transportation eventhough it kills 50,000+ a year and injures many more. Are you telling me that we should shut down the coal electric utilities generating power for over 75 million people because 30 "unlucky" individuals will contract a rare cancer and die?? From a big picture point of view, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Industry experts never claimed coal was completely risk-free. The real question is "what is an acceptable risk"? Zero isn't a realistic answer.
I would recommend not getting too carried away with this one. Over-hyping "30 people die every year to coal" isn't going to gain much sympathy with the average American. There are industries that kill and maim a lot more every year - an unfortunate cost of being a "modern" society.

Steve Obenour — Jul 1 2008 11:00 AM

Liquid coal made with carbon sequestration can be as clean or cleaner than conventional oil fuels. Carbon sequestration has already been proven at Kinder Morgan in TX where over 1 billion cu ft of co2 is captured daily and pumped underground for permanent storage. We only have 50 years max left on the oil supply according to the DOE experts - less according to the worlds leading geophysicists. There will be 9 billion mouths to feed, and mass economic chaos will ensue long before that when the shortages hit. We need to exercise every available option to prolong the world’s survival. Ethanol can only supply 10%. Electric for everything is not feasible. Biodiesel is similar to ethanol. Both will add to food shortages. There is a 200 year coal supply that can take up the slack while sources like hydro phonic algae are developed. Liquid coal can be made with recycled water, and the land can be redeveloped into farms, forests, and lakes with minimal environmental damage – I have seen the photos of redeveloped coalmines.

Why the Price of Peak Oil is Famine
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/02/07/cnoil107.xml

Calvin Solomon — Jul 3 2008 11:06 AM

This debate reminds me of a tv commercial where a man is trapped in quick sand and those who are near, instead of reaching out to help, choose to form a committee to decide on the best way of assisting, meanwhile the man in danger dies as a result of debate and lack of action. If we just run the numbers on the Coal to liquid vs solar, wind and renewables and see how long it will take to develop alternative strategies that will meet our current and future demands, it should be easy to see that we need to persue alternatives as agressively as possible, but it is also clear that we will not meet the demands of today and the near future. To meet our many objectives such as national security, improving our economy and meeting the demand, it is necesary to become more independant as soon as possible. By spending money domestically instead of spending to foreign governments that do not aid in our cause, more R&D investment can be made by domestic companies to increse our wind, solar and renewable efforts. By this strategy, we can meet our current demands and use our own resources to improve our own situation. Using one to achieve the other is the real solution.