literature on levoglucans, PAHs, etc.
I propose that New Jersey's heating should all be electrified, using new and existing nuclear plants.
I don't want
your secondhand smoke either, kiddie, but being entirely unfamiliar with the contents of the scientific literature, with papers, like say
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4PPMXW7-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1299545056&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6055&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=401&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c9b6bcab9071e19275b3a9a0a6883af">Atmospheric Environment Volume 42, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 101-112, which would indicate to a scientifically literate person - which excludes all the twits who are so concerned about tritium, which harms no one - that PM10 from wood smoke, even in Europe, represents a
real threat to health.
Additionally, aerosols have been related to adverse health effects in various studies (e.g., Pierson et al., 1989). Especially the fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter o2.5 mm (PM2.5) is of great concern because it can easily enter the human respiratory system. Many studies have provided evidence that ambient PM2.5 concentration strongly correlates with mortality rate (e.g., Dockery et al., 1993; Laden et al., 2006), and that long-term exposure of combustion-related fine particulates increases the risk for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality (Pope et al., 2002). The combustion of wood leads to the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter. The latter consists of a high amount of BC and organic compounds, e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) or humic-like substances (HULIS) (Hoffer et al., 2006; Kochbach et al., 2006).
The bold is mine.
Actually, in the bizarre calculus of the uneducated anti-science anti-nuke crowd, all the deaths from wood smoke in Europe don't add up to a single paranoid
fantasy about a death from tritium, none of which have been shown to occur.
As is usually the case, the anti-nuke crowd is obsessed with claiming that only nuclear energy be perfect, and all of the far more dangerous stuff they don't care about, and indeed promote, can kill at will, in as large a number as is possible.
Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all the
deadly stuff - dangerous fossil fuels, wood, the toxic solar industry, and the grease sticks in the sky. It only needs to be vastly superior, which it is.