http://issuu.com/greenpeaceinternationa ... 15/3236820
Wow, a large coal liability study from Stuttgart, a fine school, now this should have been interesting. I kind of accept old dirty coal power stations need fixing and this should have given us clues as to which ones and the true cost of the pollution. However, no protocol prospective methods are given. This means before you run any such epidemiological study you must discuss what you intend to study and give statistical power reasoning for your findings and what results determine significance. You can't just randomly collect data and invent conclusions after you collected it. That is called historical data and statistically is very, very weak, it simply has no power as there are no internal controls. The whole thing is complete qualitative garbage. On page 53 they talk about "findings from large statistical studies" but give no references, geez. Quoting random references without explanations does not count and if you do they are not "Endnotes" page 56 - geez.The logic of arsenic is a poison, coal burning produces arsenic therefore coal is bad is tripe. I like the Stuttgart schools and Greenpeace but this is the worst kind of trash and a disgrace to the scientific community. Greenpeace I can forgive, sensationalism is their bag but Stuttgart - shame on you.
Great graphics but just not a scientific paper but good enough for the low information voters. Who cares about facts anyway. Sigh.... I wonder what Kim is doing today?