Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blackout Was Good News, For Pollution

Posted by michael on from the silver-lining dept.

squidfrog writes "In regard to the August blackout, University of Maryland researchers have announced the results of measurements indicating the level of pollution normally caused by power plants in the region of the blackout, which could be measured for the first time by comparing the idle power plants with those still operational. 'Aircraft sampling in the 24 hours following the blackout found a 90 percent drop in sulfur dioxide and a 50 percent cut in ozone levels, while visibility increased by more than 25 miles.'" MSNBC has a related story.

6 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Good Science/Bad Science by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In true /. fashion, I haven't RTFA yet, but I did hear the story a day or two back, on NPR.

    I also heard a related story, about how North Dakota has come up with an alternative pollution formula to allow them to build more power plants, and burn more coal in them, even though the current formula says they're already over the limit. The scientists at the EPA disagreed, but the politicians at the EPA overruled, and approved the EPA formula.

    Meanwhile, here in Vermont, we have strict limits on the local fish we're supposed to eat. (For instance, one Walleye per person per month, and they advise that children or pregnant women probably shouldn't have even that much.) One component of this is mercury, which is largely from powerplant emissions. The North Dakota report cited their 'pristine sky'. Of course it is, it all blows downwind on the prevailing westerlies. As a kid in school in Ohio, they talked about how tall smokestacks got the junk up into the stratosphere, and were the solution to pollution. Right. It got it into the prevailing westerlies, and made it S.E.P. (Somebody Else's Problem)

    No doubt if we took a similar attitude in Vermont, it would blow out to sea, and we'd hear more about dying fisheries. As it is, we have some of the highest power rates in the country. I'll rant no further.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Good Science/Bad Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The MSNBC article also mentions that power plant emissions shorten 23,600 lives a year. Is nuclear really thatdangerous (compared to the environmental damage that you discussed and no-shit deaths caused)? Even the worst (tinfoil hat) estimates of Chernobyl can not even remotely compare with a century of fossil emissions. Another neat figure: 38,200 nonfatal heart attacks and 554,000 asthma attacks. Wow! It's really criminal where the anti-nuke lobby has put us.

  2. Proof for the idiots who dont already know it. by Zarks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds very similar to the stories of the ban of aircraft travel in the few days after 11 sept affecting the climate.

    This just proves how much of a huge differance we are making to the planet. One more reason to take global warming seriously.

    1. Re:Proof for the idiots who dont already know it. by bryanp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This just proves how much of a huge differance we are making to the planet. One more reason to take global warming seriously.

      I am not disagreeing with you, but it also proves just how transient our influence truly is. Shut them down, problem begins abating immediately and to a remarkable degree. Shutting them down completely is not really an option, but it does show that if we improve the cleanliness of our power systems it will have a effect in a very short period of time.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    2. Re:Proof for the idiots who dont already know it. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I am not disagreeing with you, but it also proves just how transient our influence truly is. Shut them down, problem begins abating immediately and to a remarkable degree.

      What's kind of scary is how abating the "problem" suddenly probably has unforseen consequences.

      For example, shutting down all air travel means a lot less CO2 generated/O2 used. For a short period of time, oxygen levels rise ever so slightly-which can mean an increase in forest fires and such. Think butterfly-flaps-its-wings kinda deal...

      --
      Please help metamoderate.
  3. Re:What happened to the Scientific Method? by MrNixon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More like a multi year experiment, with one control. And that control would be the day without the powerplant emissions spewing into the atmosphere.