Clean air is healthy; coal isn’t

Re: letter from Shaelyn Campbell on Aug. 9: No one disputes that clean air is healthier than polluted, however, I urge less inflammatory rhetoric and loose presentation of “statistics” in presenting one’s case. Even a cursory fact-check of the information calls the screed into question.

Factoring in the prevailing westerly winds, a quick check of map of the US shows it’s extremely unlikely that any emissions from the Colstrip power station ever reach the state of Washington much less directly affect our immediate area. Does whatever “pollution” the plant may cause affect someone? Undoubtedly it does. But to single out this one plant in particular over all other such plants (which abound throughout the US - and are closely monitored by the EPA) seems a bit like tilting at windmills.

Until mankind learns how to safely harness the atom, and/or guarantee the sun will always shine and wind will always blow 100 percent of the time (an impossibility), power plants, however they are fueled, will be a part of our foreseeable future.

The additional claim that the energy supplied to all the major metropolitan areas named is 100 percent clean. It boggles the mind. What facts back up this specious claim? It is the careless usage of language and so called “statistics” which makes it so easy for people to call into question the motives and interests of those who rationally care about the subject.

This story was originally published August 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM with the headline "Clean air is healthy; coal isn’t."