— by Michael Riordan, from WhatcomWatch.org —
From health and environmental perspectives, the proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal could hardly have been sited at a worse location:
Designating Cherry Point as the site will require coal trains over a mile long to traverse dozens of communities from the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area north to Bellingham, blocking scores of railroad crossings while spewing diesel fumes and releasing fugitive coal dust. Although the noxious dust can be reduced by spraying the carloads with sticky liquids called “surfactants,” this procedure is at most 90 percent effective. Powder River Basin coal dries out and cracks in transit, according to knowledgeable industry insiders,1 so its dustiness increases as the trains approach Seattle, potentially affecting nearly four million people in the area.
Diesel particulate matter is however not controllable — unless BNSF Railway can eliminate it by electrifying rail lines or converting locomotives to natural gas. In 2012, it was definitely established by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen, responsible for lung cancer. And the many cars, buses and trucks idling at railroad crossings will further exacerbate the adverse health impacts, notes UCLA Professor of Environmental Sciences Arthur Winer, a national expert on diesel exhaust fumes.2 How many additional cancer deaths would this large Washington population have to suffer due to an added 18 trains a day chugging through its midst?
(To read the full article, go to whatcomwatch.org/coalterminal )
Michael Riordan lives on Orcas Island, where he writes about science, technology and public policy. The author of “The Hunting of the Quark” and co-author of “The Solar Home Book,” among others, he is a founding member of the San Juans Alliance, a coalition of island environmental groups opposed to the proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal.
Wow, gotta hand it to you Micheal, I think you used every adjective I know to bolster your “scientific” listing of every scare tactic in the environmentalists book. Bravo.
John – Your tongue is really sharp, but you really need to sharpen your critical thinking skills. Before you label everything as “scare tactic” please go back to the original literature and check out the facts. A good place to start is the work of Melissa Ahern in the School of Pharmacy at Washington State University in Spokane. She has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed literature, such as the journal Environmental Research, specifically on the effects of coal dust on community health. If, during your search of the literature, you find articles on the benign effects of coal dust on human health, please do let me know. A good scientist considers all sides of an issue before coming to a reasoned conclusion.
Barb- my critical thinking skills are just fine, thanks for your concern. I’ve learned that when the arguments against something include wildly exaggerated claims, distortions of scientific fact, and dismissal of good old common sense then more often than not there are several holes in the argument. No one that I know of is stating that there are NO concerns with coal/dust/traffic, etc, just that like all forms of progress ways will be found to mitigate and alleviate the problems to acceptable levels (example: the oil refineries at Anacortes and Cherry Pt. No doubt if they were applying for permits now the same people would be trying to block them using the same arguments, but they are, and have been for a long time, operating and meeting all environmental requirements while providing much needed jobs and products for our area).
I’ll end with your own advice; ” A good scientist considers ALL sides of an issue before coming to a reasoned conclusion.”
The real question is this: why are we shipping coal to China and Asia in the first place? How many permanent “jobs” will be created, compared with how many economies will suffer in towns and cities negatively impacted by loss of fish, wildlife, clean air and water, and life in our oceans? Who profits – the majority of people along all the coal routes, or a few corporations and CEOs? What happens if 200,000 tons of bitumen bunker fuel should spill into the Salish Sea? Accidents have already happened. More will happen. Who would clean up our fresh and saltwater systems, if cleanup is even possible? What effect on wetlands, ground water, sea life, and humans will fugitive coal dust have? Since only a tablespoon full is known to acidify the ocean, what is the guarantee that coal export will not kill our ocean life? How many economies would that affect? How many permanent jobs would be lost in the event of a spill or accident? What about cumulative effects? Since surfactants are hormone disruptors, how would putting surfactants on the coal affect ecosystems – in addition to the fugitive coal dust? China benefits from the coal, but even China is re-thinking the health risks to its people. the Chinese people and we on the west coast will lose our respiratory health. China is already experiencing this. How many forests do you think we can cut down, how many rivers and streams can we pollute, how much groundwater can we poison before we reach the point of no return, and create a world inhospitable to human life? 200 species go extinct every DAY. I am sick to death of the word “mitigate.” How about these words – when in doubt as to the effect – do no harm. People along the coal train route already are experiencing serious health issues. Is this not proof enough that the idea of coal export is unwise, even in the best case scenario?