Air Pollution From Oil and Gas Causes 90,000 Premature US Deaths Each Year, Says New Study (theguardian.com) 104
Air pollution from oil and gas causes more than 90,000 premature deaths and sickens hundreds of thousands of people across the US each year, a new study shows, with disproportionately high impacts on communities of color. From a report: More than 10,000 annual pre-term births are attributable to fine particulate matter from oil and gas, the authors found, also linking 216,000 annual childhood-onset asthma cases to the sector's nitrogen dioxide emissions and 1,610 annual lifetime cancer cases to its hazardous air pollutants. The highest number of impacts are seen in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while the per-capita incidences are highest in New Jersey, Washington DC, New York, California and Maryland.
Shocking, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also FTFY: "with disproportionately high impacts on low income communities". The original phrase sounds like a dog whistle.
Yeah but we've got wind & solar (Score:2)
e.g. there's little or no reason for us to accept those deaths anymore, let along the trillions in externalized costs from the oil industry. We didn't fight $7t in middle east wars for "freedom".
And no, it's not a dog whistle. A dog whistle is when you say something that communicates to a specific group something you do not want the wider audience to be aware of. The fact that poor communities are more likely to live in pollut
Re: (Score:3)
and if we had a functioning civilization we'd have nuke too, but well....
So rally up some investors and start building reactors, what's stopping you? Maybe you can get around the fact that it's not profitable by taking a lead from yesterday's Peter Thiel-funded biotech story and also sell NukeCoins or cooling tower NFTs.
And the waste problem? Eh, just put it in the shrimp. Everybody just expects them to be radioactive now anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
So rally up some investors and start building reactors, what's stopping you?
Probably the NRC.
For a very long time the NRC had members that would flat out refuse to issue permits no matter how well funded a project was, or how detailed the application spelled out safety and profitability. There's been some applications sitting with the NRC for years, decades even, before the people that submitted the application just ran out of money to keep the application alive. It sounds like attitudes have changed enough that we might finally have the NRC do their job of reviewing applications
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree that there's room in the marketplace for nuclear, but it's more like how there's always some third party Amazon seller offering to sell you a box of cereal for $20, if you really want it badly enough.
There are customers willing to pay what nuclear energy costs to bring to market, but the 1950s dreams of "too cheap to meter" were just that - dreams. If your goal really is to produce abundant cheap power, you have to go with the energy sources where both the fuel and byproduct disposal costs are a
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the NRC.
The NRC has no power in other western countries yet the other countries also can't get nuke projects off the ground on a cost basis. Maybe the NRC isn't the issue?
Re: (Score:3)
The NRC has no power in other western countries yet the other countries also can't get nuke projects off the ground on a cost basis. Maybe the NRC isn't the issue?
Okay then, I'll give a more generic answer... politics.
https://www.9news.com.au/natio... [9news.com.au]
Which countries have banned nuclear power?
Countries that have banned the construction of new nuclear power plants like Australia include Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Norway and Serbiaï.
Several other nations have also announced plans to phase-out nuclear power, including ïBelguim, Germany, the Phillipines and Switzerland.
There's people in these listed nations that want nuclear power, are willing to fund it, but with bans in place there's no means by which to get permits for construction and connection to the electrical grid.
Why ban nuclear power if the costs for nuclear power are prohibitive? But is nuclear power prohibitively expensive?
The Coalition has claimed the plan is 44 per cent cheaper than the government's renewable energy plan and would lower Australians' electricity bills.
It appears that there is some disagreement on the costs. Well, the costs aren't going to come down
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that poor communities are more likely to live in polluted areas is just facts. You not liking facts doesn't make them not facts...
That's not the important criticism. The important criticism is that just because it's targeting poor black communities doesn't mean it is racism. It could be simple economics or it could be classism. The article with it's "most affected by" fails to go beyond correlation to actually reach causation. I don't specifically see why the poor rural white communities of the Appalachians should not also be affected by pollution from transport and exploration of oil.
However, the article might also be right. Maybe so
Re: (Score:1)
You're missing the point: fossil fuels are racist.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's really, "the use of fossil fuels rewards the producers of a resource that greatly benefits to this day from institutional racism."
Fossil fuels of course can't be racist. They're fuel.
Even using them doesn't make you racist. But there is good evidence to show that using them does disproportionate harm to racial minorities that ended up living where they did because of the pressures of institutional racism.
However, if that makes you feel unco
Re: (Score:1)
It has nothing at all to do with racism. It's all economic.
It's just that Progressives have to attach 'racist' to everything they deem needs to go away as yet another reason to get rid of it. It's getting tiring and voters are starting to reject race being brought in to every argument.
Re: (Score:2)
To argue that economic factors didn't have racist effects is to argue against the sky being blue.
The point of the above missive was to point out that you dumbshits can try to erase the nuance to make things seem stupid, but you're not doing anything but trying to make yourself feel smart in the face of people who are looking at more facets of a system than you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me that you (possibly intentionally) do not understand institutional racism without saying you do not understand institutional racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't "institutional racism" need to be formally instituted?
No, it does not.
It merely needs to be embedded in the institution.
They can be entirely unintentional, or fallout from previously disestablished policies (i.e., pretending that redlining doesn't have consequences today is mind-numbingly stupid)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. Even something like building roads can be performed racistly. The podcast Behind the bastards [behindthebastards.com] had two episodes about this:
Robert and Bridgett Todd sit down to talk about Robert Moses, a man who loved racism almost as much as he hated public transit.
And also, just because some racist action has stopped being performed does in absolutely no way imply that the effect of that action vanishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Even using them doesn't make you racist. But there is good evidence to show that using them does disproportionate harm to racial minorities that ended up living where they did because of the pressures of institutional racism.
In this particular study somehow native Americans were least exposed while Asians get the shortest end of the stick beating out Hispanics and Blacks in exposure. Yet in every metric I've ever seen Asians consistently come out ahead of every other ethnic group including whites in crime, median income and life expectancy. This seems to directly cut against your racism theory.
If you combine the studies assertion **96%** of the pollution being **end use** and compare the end use map on pg4 of the study with a
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular study somehow native Americans were least exposed while Asians get the shortest end of the stick beating out Hispanics and Blacks in exposure. Yet in every metric I've ever seen Asians consistently come out ahead of every other ethnic group including whites in crime, median income and life expectancy. This seems to directly cut against your racism theory.
That's not true at all.
It seems to cut into a some kind of weird strawman you just invented.
Nothing I said had anything to do with the economic situation of any of the cohorts, except for the corporations exploiting the resource.
The rest of your comment can be safely ignored given that glaring fucking error.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true at all.
It seems to cut into a some kind of weird strawman you just invented.
Nothing I said had anything to do with the economic situation of any of the cohorts, except for the corporations exploiting the resource.
What you said was the following: "But there is good evidence to show that using them does disproportionate harm to racial minorities that ended up living where they did because of the pressures of institutional racism."
If you didn't mean this to say you end up in a shitty place because racism and that shitty place exposes you to "disproportionate harm" then what did you intend your statement to say? What else does it mean to end up living in a place that causes disproportionate harm because institutional r
Re: (Score:2)
What you said was the following: "But there is good evidence to show that using them does disproportionate harm to racial minorities that ended up living where they did because of the pressures of institutional racism."
Correct, that is what I said.
If you didn't mean this to say you end up in a shitty place because racism and that shitty place exposes you to "disproportionate harm" then what did you intend your statement to say?
That is what I said.
However, that is not how you described it:
Yet in every metric I've ever seen Asians consistently come out ahead of every other ethnic group including whites in crime, median income and life expectancy. This seems to directly cut against your racism theory.
Are you legitimately confused by this, or are you trying to throw chaff into the air?
Every single one of those is entirely orthogonal to the practice of redlining, which wasn't even economic in nature- simply racial. It led to racial demongraphics being focused in shitty places.
The "glaring fucking error" is your absurd statements.
No, it's your bullshit strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular study somehow native Americans were least exposed while Asians get the shortest end of the stick beating out Hispanics and Blacks in exposure. Yet in every metric I've ever seen Asians consistently come out ahead of every other ethnic group including whites in crime, median income and life expectancy. This seems to directly cut against your racism theory.
Are you legitimately confused by this, or are you trying to throw chaff into the air?
Every single one of those is entirely orthogonal to the practice of redlining, which wasn't even economic in nature- simply racial. It led to racial demongraphics being focused in shitty places.
I'm legitimately thinking your a crazy person, a basket case. You admit to saying people end up in a shitty place that exposes them to disproportionate harm cuz racism.
When I point out Asians have it worse than the other ethnicities in this paper yet by all metrics they do disproportionately better than every other ethnic group you ignore this evidence against the premise of racism causing disproportionate harm WRT pollution exposure in this study as a "strawman".
Now you are talking about "orthogonal to re
Re: (Score:2)
I'm legitimately thinking your a crazy person, a basket case. You admit to saying people end up in a shitty place that exposes them to disproportionate harm cuz racism.
When I point out Asians have it worse than the other ethnicities in this paper yet by all metrics they do disproportionately better than every other ethnic group you ignore this evidence against the premise of racism causing disproportionate harm WRT pollution exposure in this study as a "strawman".
You've now adjusted "crime, median income and life expectancy." to be "all metrics", which is even more laughable.
You selected 3 metrics, and assumed that since some of the ethnicities listed are unimpacted in those metrics, racism is disproven.
The fact is, all that was accounted for was exposure to pollution. Period. That exposure to pollution is affected by redlining and other systemically racist systems. Reading any more into that is an argument you're having in your head, not one that I made. That's
Re: (Score:2)
You've now adjusted "crime, median income and life expectancy." to be "all metrics", which is even more laughable.
You are fucking insane. The three were merely examples. What I said in my original statement was "Yet in every metric I've ever seen" this was later shortened to "by all metrics" condensing the text in order to focus on the insanity of your statements.
You selected 3 metrics, and assumed that since some of the ethnicities listed are unimpacted in those metrics, racism is disproven.
I've said nothing about disproving racism. It is always this constant garbage with you just pulling shit out of your ass. My commentary was about casting shade on the notion racism is causing the effects enumerated in the study. My statement was "This see
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's also work out the number of years added to everyone's life by oil & gas
Go ahead. Show your work. Avoid false dichotomies in the process like the one you've presented here.
giving us access to cheap energy
While you're at it, make sure to include the cost of cleaning up the mess. Oh, that's currently infinite since we don't actually know how to accomplish it? Well, why didn't you say so? Cognitive dissonance? You don't say.
and a range of products that improve the quality of our lives.
Is the production of those products sustainable, or can everyone who is going to potentially be alive (if not killed by the pollution) longer than those of us who are enjoying them now just d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans aren'
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can eschew the benefits of industrial society
Tell me you read things into the comment that I didn't write without telling me.
Be thankful that your own is so good that there's nowhere better for you to move to.
There's no planet B.
Re: (Score:1)
You and your argument salads could use a little less vinegar.
Re: (Score:2)
You and your argument salads could use a little less vinegar.
Says the guy without the karma bonus.
The GP argument was ignorant and dismissive, and with his closing statement, borderline racist too. Is that the Slashdot you want? And if so, why? Looking at your posting history, I find no sign that it is, so I find your response confusing. We should not tolerate that level of ridiculous fuckery, so I subject it to ridicule. We should be using our brains here, not defending a status quo which is literally threatening our existence.
You can be against the ongoing dominanc
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Pre-industrial life expectancy was less than half of what it is today.
I'd love to see fossil fuels relegated to the dustbin of history, but if you think modern human lifespans aren't dependent on hospitals with... power... you're a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
This is shockingly ignorant.
No need to tell us you don't understand the argument, we knew that already.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty simple- you have a handicap where you become psychologically distressed whenever something you are ideologically opposed to has any positive light to it. When that happens, you react like a normal person undergoing cognitive dissonance- you try to lie and bullshit the truth away until the discomfort stops.
What happened here, was you made a stupid fucking argument, and you were called out for i
Re: (Score:2)
What happened here, was you made a stupid fucking argument, and you were called out for it.
hahahahAHhAHAHAHaHahhAhaHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
You are such a buffoon, please tell me more.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a drinkypoo?
It's a formerly very common slang word in English, which you wouldn't know about, Ivan. Thanks for outing yourself, though. I honestly appreciate it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are such a buffoon, please tell me more.
No need. I think with your above capslock malfunction, and your complete lack of understanding of what the idiom "biblical scale" means, and your subtle intimations that somehow the cost of fossil fuels might not be enough to counter the literally billions of people who would not be alive today without their advent.
Truly, you're just a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
and your subtle intimations that somehow the cost of fossil fuels might not be enough to counter the literally billions of people who would not be alive today without their advent
Oh shit this is precious AF, keep going with your absolute proof that your reading comprehension skills are shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're perhaps admitting you weren't fully aware of the meaning and intimations of what you wrote, which I guess actually does seem pretty plausible- you're not fooling anyone by this 5th grade attempt at gaslighting your way out of something stupid you said.
Go ahead. Show your work. Avoid false dichotomies in the process like the one you've presented here.
They presented no such dichotomy.
Their claim consists of 2 clauses that are not dependent.
Clause 1: Fossil fuels have increased the hours of life lived by humans in aggregate by a near immeasurable amount.
Clause 2: Removing them woul
Re: Shocking, but... (Score:2)
Hahahhahaaha
Point to where I said we should stop using all fossil fuels cold turkey, you clown-ass clown.
Re: (Score:2)
Point to where I said you did.
Re: (Score:2)
Point to where I said you did.
Your ranting and rambling only makes sense on that basis.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you dumb twit.
My "ranting and rambling" makes sense in the case that I reject your intimation that there is any relevance whatsoever to the cost, given the parent's topic of "human life facilitated by fossil fuels."
When you first started this shit, you were smart enough to not use too many words- hiding the fact that you didn't really have anything to say in your defense.
Now you've just made it painfully fucking obvious that you really don't.
Re: (Score:2)
My "ranting and rambling" makes sense in the case that I reject your intimation that there is any relevance whatsoever to the cost
What kind of cost are you babbling about? You never were smart enough to communicate clearly, and you still aren't.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I agree, petroleum is such a wonderous and useful set of molecules that has contributed so many useful materials and processes that it's almost criminal that we take billions of gallons every day throw it in a big pile and light it on fire so we can "make thing hot". It's caveman-like.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I could have durable plastic goods, clothing, lubricants or fertilizer but instead I throw it into my gas tank to get 28% efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
My estimate is that approximately 7 billion people are alive today who would not be alive without oil and gas.
Re: Shocking, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> if we "just stop oil" as some people are suggesting
I'm seeing anyone suggest that. Phase it out as soon as practically possible is definitely achievable.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you need to worry about anybody just stopping all fertilizer production, for example, unless it's the US forgetting most of its potash comes from its newest hostile neighbour.
This is the bit that seems to be the problem. Nobody is going to stop using fossil fuels where there isn't a reasonable alternative. But lots of people don't want to
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, we have better alternatives now and we should move on, but if we "just stop oil" as some people are suggesting, we'll see premature deaths on a biblical scale.
There's a massive world of denialism between "Just stop Oil" and "Drill baby Drill". You can solve the world's problem long before you "just stop oil", but the vast majority of the people are unwilling to do so. They are the problem, not a few greenie morons.
Also FTFY: "with disproportionately high impacts on low income communities". The original phrase sounds like a dog whistle.
Well yes of course disproportionate on low incomes, who wants to live next to an oil refinery. That doesn't make it a dog whistle, unless you think rich people are more worthy of being alive than the poor.
Don't worry (Score:2)
I'm sure most of those deaths can be prevented with some number tweaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how they were categorized with number tweaking, you're probably right.
Link to paper (Score:2)
Paper https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
How about linking to the original source in the summary as the norm?
Re: (Score:2)
Fake News! (Score:2)
...I sniff gas every single day on the way to my beautiful golf courses and I'm the smartest person in the world, everyone knows it! Wind and solar are wasteful and ugly, just like Rosie Odonnell! Real men sniff and create gas!
Used fuel still has a total kill count of zero. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of nuclear fuel it's an externality that we have forced the industry to deal with or at least pay for and rightfully so, if we had left it up to private industry to deal with the waste with no laws i'd imagine the list of Superfund sites would include quite a bit more radiation in them. We have in fact managed the waste cycle somewhat responsibly (although an actual storage site and/or reprocessing would go a long ways)
If we had made fossil fuel producers, buyers and user cover the cost of its
Re: (Score:2)
If we had made fossil fuel producers, buyers and user cover the cost of its externalities (ie, carbon tax) we'd be looking at quite a different arrangement of energy today.
Except that carbon taxes are just putative, they don't actually solve the problem. Plus, when you have something that is as essential to the economy as fossil fuels, higher costs become just an inflationary pressure on currency itself, rather than an actual deterrence to fuel use.
Also, as has been mentioned many times before, in a democracy, raising the cost of fuels is political suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
Punitive, not putative. Damn you, autocorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's only half the story, collecting the tax. Can't judge it without judging what you use that money for like developing more grid capacity, using the cost of fuels to build more renewable energy or fund more reactors or in the form of energy credits for most Americans. It's still a tax, the utility the dollars it provides is the way you have to judge if it's cost is worth it.
Carbon tax exists in a world where it is more politically attainable than direct action. I like direct action better but car
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing, Republicans aren't big fans of taxes in general.
And Democrats? Well, many of us have been burned too many times by "We totally swear to use the money for... *checks notes* umm... Oh look, a squirrel!"
Re: (Score:2)
Well there was a time Republicans made it a point to care about economic realities, Milton Friedman endorsed the idea “The best way to [reduce auto emissions] is to impose a tax on the amount of pollutants emitted by a car,” he says. “[This] make[s] it in the self-interest of car manufacturers and consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.”
Sure Democrats aren't the best but each given $300B to spend Democrats gave us the CHIPS Act and Trump gave it all to ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are *massive* fans of taxes, they just like taxes where the main burden falls on poor people. You know, like tariffs.
Re: (Score:1)
Taxes involve taking money from people. Poor people have very little money. Trying to take money from people who don't have money is a plan that most Republicans are not stupid enough to try to implement.
Poor people spend a disproportionately large portion of their income on food and housing. Housing is mostly not imported, hence not subject to tariffs. In the U.S. most food is grown in-country, not subject to tariffs.
Alas, both parties are in favor of high taxes. The Democrats are more honest about wanting
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus fucking wept, you cannot surely be this simplistic.
Did you miss who the winners and losers were from the tax cuts in the big bill that was just passed? Three trillion of cuts for the very wealthiest, with the burden shifting to everyone else. The poorest were disproportionately hardest hit.
The idea that housing and food are unaffected by tariffs! Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think that food just sort of grows by itself, without any inputs? Items that food producers and retailers use that are pro
Re: (Score:2)
I notice i only really covered food producers there. Didn't cover items for wholesalers, logistics or retailers. And I didn't cover housing. Because basically absolutely everything is going to see input costs rise, because the tariffs are pervasive.
Re: (Score:2)
If raising the cost of fuels really were political suicide in a democracy, then no democracy would have taxes on fuel. In fact, European democracies routinely have high levels of taxes on fuel, much higher than in the US. So there's no ineluctable link between higher fuel prices and political suicide. What you're actually pointing to is yet another way that the US has contrived to put itself in the shitty position of facing very hard problems that the rest of the developed world doesn't face. It's like when
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of nuclear fuel it's an externality that we have forced the industry to deal with or at least pay for
The money "the industry" puts down for decommissioning never covers the cost and we always have to make up the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You antinuclear scumbags always have to lie don't you!
HahaHAHAHAHhAHAHAhAhAHAHAHAHA
Nuclear can only be sold with lies. And here you are trying to sell it even though you never get paid, what a simpering clown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Used fuel (aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant) has a total kill count of zero. Yet it is treated as some kind of gotcha by the fossil fuel industry and their allies in the antinuclear movement.
So much could come from used fuel, including more fuel. When a fuel rod is "spent" there's still a lot of fuel in it, but it has two problems. First is that there's fission products eating up a lot of neutrons. Second is the fuel was thinned out by some of it being consumed. One possible way to get more life out of the fuel rods taken from light water reactors is use them in heavy water reactors that conserve more of the neutrons. After that though it's "doubly spent" and so needs to go somewhere other
Re: (Score:1)
We have "nuclear medicine" because we have nuclear power.
Na. We have "cheap" nuclear medicine because we have research reactors.
Most were discovered outside of nuclear reactors, but made economical with them. Linear accelerators and cyclotrons still produce some of them even today.
Close the EPA (Score:1)
quite sure capitalists (Score:2)
Those are rookie numbers. (Score:5, Informative)
We gotta pump those numbers up!
10.9 million people died per year on average in WWII.
6.25 million people died per year of the Black Death during its peak years.
2.3 million people die of old age per year in the US alone.
Come on, big oil. You're not even trying here!
Obvious nonsense is obvious (Score:2)
Everyone (except for journos needing clickbait, of course) realizes this is clearly nonsense, right?
More of the same (Score:2)
"We determine the health burden of air pollution from each major O&G lifecycle stage by estimating specific adverse health outcomes associated with O&G activities with known statistical relationships between air pollution exposure and health risk (23â"29)."
In other words they are not actually collecting and analyzing correlations between pollution levels and health they are calculating impacts from a table of assumptions.
Lives Schmives (Score:2)
How many dollars is that?
Without a dollar figure, it's hard to put this oil subsidy into perspective. Is this a huge subsidy, or just a little one?
Thanks to Oil, lives are saved. Here is why (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Lives are saved, and lives are lost. But more importantly and validly than doing the math on the net, we should talk about whether we have alternatives now. For some purposes, no. For most purposes, yes. Therefore we can reduce our use of fossil fuels, and we should, because it will save still more lives. The debate is not over whether we ever should have started burning fossil fuels, because we could not have gotten here without them. It's about how quickly we can and should stop.
The health system is a pro
Re: (Score:2)
You are clearly and intentionally trying to link oil and gas to everything good that has happened in the same period of time. While power has been necessary for many of the improvements we have, you have missed that regulations to reduce the amount of pollution keep getting repealed. Even low sulfur diesel isn't mandated by the government in the USA, FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Pointing to where things SHOULD be better and pointing to how many people die because politicians are in the pocket of the oil/gas compa
entropy (Score:1)
Trump thinks we can hit six digits (Score:2)
We're going to have the biggest number of everything related to Oil and Gas!
Is that more or less than caused by forest fires (Score:2)
Is 90k more or less than that caused by the air pollution coming from the annual forest fires in Canada, California, etc?
Don't forget the scale of the Canada forest fire is enough to put Canada into the top 10 CO2 emitting countries of the world. More than the total output of over 180 other countries. I.e. it is HUGE.
There is something that can be done immediately for one of these two causes, guess which one the study investigated? And why?
Oil and Gas use saves 4 billion lives each year! (Score:2)
haha not CO_2 (Score:2)
What pollution? Not CO_2. No, not the "pollution" that everyone is apoplectic about. No, it's the old fashioned "pollution" that was actually pollution, before Climatism became the compulsory state religion.
half truths (Score:2)
If that is great imagine how many would die without heating fuel, automobiles and modern transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently electrocutions kill 1,000 people in the US annually as well. I'm sure that BP and ExxonMobil can sponsor a story showing how that number is going to go up if we all get electric cars.
Of course, you should be questioning that study just from reading who sponsored it... just like you should with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Let us know when you have any evidence that refutes the study.
Re:Not a huge deal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I intend to live forever or die trying.
I'm also working on a plan for immortality. So far, so good.
Re: (Score:2)
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't scientifically prove that. Past death patterns are not a perfect proof of future patterns.
Re: Not a huge deal (Score:3)