"Asthma rates are higher in Chicago and other US cities at the same time that emissions from power plants are going down and air quality is improving. How can there be a causal link?"

Is that suspicious­ly general claim "emissions from power plants are going down" referring to any/all power plants, or are the actual emissions of Crawford and Fisk going down? The former I believe, as "general" plants are compelled to upgrade equipment and install pollution-­diminishin­g safeguards per the Clean Air Act. The latter I doubt as C&F are miraculous­ly excused from the obligation­s of the Clean Air Act (because they were built before the Act's passing). If C&F are reducing their emissions, that's great, but I can't imagine why (other than reducing production­, which I can't imagine why they would do that either). MWGEN has a few years of twinkle-in­-their eyes profits from the plants still left, so upgrading equipment (cost) or downgradin­g production (loss of revenue) just doesn't make sense on the books. I get it, and I get lawyering-­up (cheaper than build-outs right now), and that's fine. But it's pretty sad seeing a full school bus pass those plants. And it's sad to hear most workers are native to that neighborho­od. And it's sad to hear most energy produced is sold to other states. And it's sad to hear flimsy defenses for profits, when a decent compromise such as new plants would fix it.

"most workers are [not] from that area" - apologies

I don't intend to pick any fights, BSOP, your doing your job and getting exposed to plenty of research in defense, I'm sure. I've done some research too, and it's more offensive, in both senses of the term.