Comment
Rate
End of discussion
For years now, I have thought that we must have two different kinds of families here in the valley, some families who were affected by air pollution and other families who were not; and that this basic difference was at the root of our disagreements over the power plant.
But this is not so. We are all affected by air pollution; it is just that some are so much more strongly affected than others. And these strongly-affected individuals exist in all our families. The recent smoke from the fires in California has proven, once again, that this is true. Most of us got by with only a minor stinging sensation in our lungs and throat, if we noticed at all; but those among us who are most affected were forced to limit outdoor activities or suffer the consequences, with asthma attacks and painful shortness of breath.
When we think of ourselves as families, we find that we all have those among us who suffer, as well as those who don't. This is borne out by the Utah State Health Dept.'s statistics; 1,600 of us here in Sevier County - one in every 11 - now has asthma, with the children and the elderly being most affected. Further, in recent years, we have been given clear and convincing proof that the more pollution we are forced to endure, the more these most susceptible individuals suffer from their afflictions. So all of our families need, and benefit from, the clean air we breathe.
On the other hand, there are those among us who would profit from the installation of a power plant. This would seem to be a legitimate and appropriate opportunity for those individuals. The great difficulty with this, though, is that in the end the profits for the one group are gained at the expense of the sufferings of the other, and there is no way for the ones who are profiting to make it right with the ones who are suffering.
So now the problem becomes much more well defined, and much more personal. As responsible individuals, which is more important to us: the health and physical well-being of our families and our community - including these most susceptible ones - or the additional moneys that we, speaking both personally and collectively, might gain from putting in such a power plant?
I recognize that for some this may be a complex and difficult question, and with them I have no quarrel; but for me, the answer is startlingly simple and obvious: no amount of money could ever compensate for inflicting any degree of ill health on our children or our elderly. Period. End of discussion.
Lawrence Gammill
Annabella
But this is not so. We are all affected by air pollution; it is just that some are so much more strongly affected than others. And these strongly-affected individuals exist in all our families. The recent smoke from the fires in California has proven, once again, that this is true. Most of us got by with only a minor stinging sensation in our lungs and throat, if we noticed at all; but those among us who are most affected were forced to limit outdoor activities or suffer the consequences, with asthma attacks and painful shortness of breath.
When we think of ourselves as families, we find that we all have those among us who suffer, as well as those who don't. This is borne out by the Utah State Health Dept.'s statistics; 1,600 of us here in Sevier County - one in every 11 - now has asthma, with the children and the elderly being most affected. Further, in recent years, we have been given clear and convincing proof that the more pollution we are forced to endure, the more these most susceptible individuals suffer from their afflictions. So all of our families need, and benefit from, the clean air we breathe.
On the other hand, there are those among us who would profit from the installation of a power plant. This would seem to be a legitimate and appropriate opportunity for those individuals. The great difficulty with this, though, is that in the end the profits for the one group are gained at the expense of the sufferings of the other, and there is no way for the ones who are profiting to make it right with the ones who are suffering.
So now the problem becomes much more well defined, and much more personal. As responsible individuals, which is more important to us: the health and physical well-being of our families and our community - including these most susceptible ones - or the additional moneys that we, speaking both personally and collectively, might gain from putting in such a power plant?
I recognize that for some this may be a complex and difficult question, and with them I have no quarrel; but for me, the answer is startlingly simple and obvious: no amount of money could ever compensate for inflicting any degree of ill health on our children or our elderly. Period. End of discussion.
Lawrence Gammill
Annabella
 |
 |
|
| Ahh ... trocious | For heck sake, be smart |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
Opinions expressed in The Richfield Reaper story comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of The Richfield Reaper. The Richfield Reaper provides an interactive online networking service and does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than its authorized spokespersons.
If you feel someone has violated our posting guidelines please contact us (reapered@richfieldreaper.com) immediately so we can remove the post. We appreciate your help in regulating our online community.
Asthmatic wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:09 PM:
" Mr. Gammill, Nevco and the oligarchs care as much about your health, as Phillip Morris cares about a smokers. "
Chapster wrote on Nov 23, 2007 8:29 PM:
" This is the problem with opponents of the power plant. They cite statistics that have no concrete basis, relying on averages and generalities. They use emotion as their final strong point, instead of facts. Are there ANY hard facts as to how many people here truly are asthmatics? I'd welcome such, but somehow I doubt they exist.
Asthma occurs for a number of different reasons. There are more causes than we presently know. I saw a news release just recently that stated if mothers took fish oil capsules or ate fish during pregnancy, that asthma drops significantly in children. Pollution doesn't cause asthma, only aggravates it. There are modalities out there that can ameliorate it significantly, if we just look and try them.
One last point. With the clean burning of this coal, how do we know this will be the problem that people like Mr. Gammill claim it will be? The simple fact is, we don't. "
Raymondthistime wrote on Nov 24, 2007 2:01 AM:
" Yuppers, and who is actually paying $$$$$ toward your junk science based judgements? ***** I'll add this, when any state to the southwest of Utah, oh gee, CA or NV, committs to allow 2 million LESS new vehicles to be sold each year, that are of course NOT some form of hybred, then we in Utah can begin to discuss the junk science of second hand smoke! And since 600 words and no links are not even close to breaching the subject...... ********** "This is borne out by the Utah State Health Dept.'s statistics; 1,600 of us here in Sevier County - one in every 11 - now has asthma, with the children and the elderly being most affected. Further, in recent years, we have been given clear and convincing proof that the more pollution we are forced to endure, the more these most susceptible individuals suffer from their afflictions. So all of our families need, and benefit from, the clean air we breathe."******** And EXACTLY what are the comparisions with ALL orhter counties with an installed goal fired power plant built after the year 2000? Oh and do note, that Sevier county does NOT currently have such a dispenser of containments..... Put up your numbers! "
Blah wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:42 AM:
" As opposed to the supporters of the power plant, who seem to think they can just call any fact that hurts their case "junk science" or "propaganda." It wouldn't matter how good the source is that the opponents use, the supports would just discount it as liberal propaganda.
Let me ask a question, why would the scientific community make up the facts about air pollution's health effects? Do they just want to see the economy of the world crumble? Do they want to see society give up and go back to the caves? Or is it more reasonable to assume that maybe there is something to all the science that says burning coal is bad. I personally don't care about the power plant, I just hate the stupidity of calling everything that refutes one point of view "propaganda" when it comes from clearly reputable sources. "
Thann to the propaganda screamers wrote on Nov 25, 2007 3:33 PM:
" A 10 year study of children funded by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Resource Board (ARB)and conducted by the University of Southern California has produced the strongest evidence to date that 0zone, commonly known as smog can cause asthma in children.
ARB Chairman Dr. Alan Lloyd said, "We've known for some time that smog can trigger attacks in asthmatics. This study has shown that ozone can cause asthma as well ". I realize I am "casting pearls among swine" but so be it. "
Asthmatic to the oligarchs wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:01 PM:
" As we all know the major goal in life for the American Lung Assoc. is to stop the power plant...The following is an example of their latest liberal propaganda.......Two studies published by the American Lung Association ''demonstrate air pollution;s significant potential to harm children with asthma and the elderly. One study found that on high pollution summer days, children with asthma were 40 percent more likely to suffer asthma attacks compared with days with average pollution levels. The second study found that increases in air pollution levels in the summer months were associated with a rise in the daily number of hospital emergency room visits by elderly people. The levels of ozone and particulate matter air pollution linked with increased E R visits in this study were WELL BELOW current U.S. government air quality standards.
o "
RSS