'Coal Cares' Hoax Website Backed by Science

+++lead-in-text [![](https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/05/coal_cares.jpg "coal_cares")](https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/05/coal_cares.jpg) +++ An activist prankster group called Coal is Killing Kids has struck with a hoax website lampooning the coal industry's resistance to federal pollution reforms. And science is on their side. The target of their "[Coal Cares](http://www.coalcares.org/index.html)" site, supposedly offering free Justin Bieber and Dora the Explorer inhalers to children living near coal-fired power plants, is [Peabody Energy](http://www.peabodyenergy.com/), the world's largest private coal company. Peabody and other energy companies have opposed government-mandated cleanup fixes. "Some environmentalists have suggested that coal companies should install an untested technology called 'scrubbers' atop coal plants to make them burn more cleanly, reducing coal particulate exposure as one cause of childhood asthma," [reads the site](http://www.coalcares.org/faq.html). "For our part, Peabody has decided that reducing Asthma-Related Bullying (ARB) is the single most effective way to combat public misperceptions of our industry." Peabody's response to the hoax was immediate. "A growing collection of studies demonstrate the correlation between electricity fueled by low-cost coal and improvement in health, longevity and quality of life," said a [company press release](http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1562064&highlight=). "The United Nations has linked life expectancy, educational attainment and income with per-capita electricity use, and the World Resources Institute found that for every tenfold increase in per-capita energy use, individuals live 10 years longer." *(Editor's note: The World Resources Institute "[does not support Peabody’s press statement or the related conclusions drawn from this data](http://www.wri.org/press/2011/05/wri-statement-energy-production-and-human-health).")* But when it comes to coal, those claims don't withstand close scrutiny, said environmental health expert Julia Gohlke of the University of Alabama. "That relationship completely breaks down when we're looking at the infant mortality levels and life expectancy levels that we enjoy in the United States," she said. "In fact, what you see is a negative impact on health when you look at coal versus other fuels." +++inset-left >'Increasing coal consumption was associated with reduced life expectancy and increased infant mortality.' +++ Gohlke was the lead author of an [*Environmental Health Perspectives* analysis](http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1002241) published in February that tested coal industry claims that the prosperity-related health benefits of burning coal offset damage from pollution. In the study, the researchers cross-referenced health data with electricity consumption patterns in 41 countries between 1965 and 2005. They found that in extremely poor countries with high infant mortality and low life expectancy, coal-fired plants indeed improved health: It's better to burn coal in a centralized location than inside the home, and energy supports sanitation infrastructure. But for wealthier countries, "increasing coal consumption was associated with reduced life expectancy and increased infant mortality." Peabody also claimed that coal's benefits were overlooked when they [declared opposition](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Petition_for_Reconsideration_Peabody_Energy_Company.pdf) (.pdf) to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 finding that [greenhouse gases posed a danger to public health](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html). "A finding that [greenhouse gas emissions] endanger public health and welfare is akin to saying that modern life endangers public health or welfare. But plainly just the opposite is the case," the company argued to the EPA. But while the EPA evaluated links between climate change and public health, they also looked at the effect of pollutants released in burning coal. Those are an immediately quantifiable danger. When coal is burned, it releases fine particles, which become embedded in lung tissue, triggering inflammation that spreads to blood vessels in the heart. Particles aside, pollutants in coal emissions include benzene, dioxin, formaldehyde, lead, arsenic and mercury. Nitrogen oxides lead to smog. According to a [report released in September 2010](http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/138) by the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, coal power plant pollution killed approximately 13,200 people last year, led to the hospitalization of 9,700 others and caused 20,000 heart attacks, with a financial toll of $100 billion dollars. "Among all industrial sources of air pollution, none poses greater risks to human health and the environment than coal-fired power plants," concluded the report. Its assessment was echoed in a white paper issued in March by the American Lung Association entitled "[Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants](http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/toxic-air-coal-fired-power-plants.html)," which was followed in May by their "[State of the Air 2011](http://www.stateoftheair.org/2011/assets/SOTA2011.pdf)" report. The latter described the toll of particulates in especially strong language. "Particle pollution does not just make people die a few days earlier than they might otherwise," it said. "These are deaths that would not have occurred if the air were cleaner." Later this summer, the EPA is expected to approve a pair of rules that would require coal power plants to install pollution-scrubbing on smokestacks. One rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, was originally approved by Congress in 1990 as an update to the Clean Air Act, but has been delayed ever since by energy industry resistance. Energy-industry-supported congressional Republicans have [asked to delay the rules](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/idUS329099830920110420) further, describing pollution reforms as [economically destructive](http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/04/13/economy-in-jeopardy-as-budget-deal-affirms-epa-climate-programs/). The EPA's willingness to clean up coal is part of the reason congressional Republicans have [attacked the EPA so ferociously](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/09/politics/main7334006.shtml), even [trying to abolish it](http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-05-06-richard-burr-introduces-bill-to-abolish-the-epa), said [Janice Nolen](http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/our-experts/janice-nolen.html), a policy expert at the American Lung Association. Since 2008, Peabody Energy has [spent approximately $6.9 million on lobbying](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000020856&year=2011), much of it on bills [involving pollution reform](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000020856&year=2011). The company did not return calls seeking comment. "The EPA estimated last year that the Clean Air Act -- and this is fundamentally what we're talking about -- had saved 160,000 lives," said Nolen. "We've seen this law work to save lives. We have an opportunity now to continue that." *Top image: A screenshot of the "Coal Cares" website by Coal is Killing Kids.* **See Also:** - [NASA Maps Global Air Pollution](https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/nasa-maps-global-air-pollution/) - [Air Pollution Could Shrivel Sperm's DNA](https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/air-pollution-c/) - [Everyday Air Pollution May Cause Stroke, Say Researchers](https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/everyday-air-po/) - [Yes Men Strike Oil: Civil Disobedients Make Modest Flesh-to-Fuel Proposal](https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/yes_men_strike_/) - [Q&A With the Yes Men's Andy Bichlbaum](https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/qa_with_the_yes/)