...where are the men? Off workin' in the mines? Or blowin down the hills which were once mountains- worn by time, through 100's of millions of years?... Yer out-of-staters: Whose masters are the elements of/from the post WW2 scab-Nazi Eurasian socialists; Which are infected politico 'scar-tissue'("scab") which formed after the war and are still infecting the American culture and its' political parties; Primarily the (formerly named)Democratic(scab-Nazi) Party. Nah, y'have ulterior motivations...
...from Google Earth...can't even see 'em... These USED TO BE AS TALL AS THE ROCKIES...~100 million years ago...Go bitch @ the Germans who do the same damn thing! So does Canada for the Alberta oil-sands/shale...barely can find 'em on Google Earth... Relatively small...Just make sure the coalers do "land reclamation!" & stream/lake recovery...they have the cash. However this .org shit is nothing less than post-WW2 scab-Nazi Eurasian socialist politico-'scar tissue' "Berlin Betty" continuance!!!
The communities around the area who is affected by mountain top removal. I wonder why these bright educated people. I wonder who built these towns. That's right it was the coal companies ummm. Dumb ass uneducated people who throw there 2 cents in for a community they don't even live in. Most people around here wanna get reach suing these companies.
It is a double-edge sword. Yes it is bad, BUT the end result is more land, and the ability to create less overcrowding. Maybe you should watch the "Positive Mountain Top Removal" video on youtube.
While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and radionuclides [5] will be more difficult to address. Technologies do exist to capture and store CO2, but they have not been made available on a large-scale commercial basis due to the high economic costs.[6] For this reason renewable energy sources is a more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative.
Why are you playing our national anthem with a tragedy like this?
Us Americans aren't proud of this, its a national shame.
curingaging00 5 months ago
...where are the men? Off workin' in the mines? Or blowin down the hills which were once mountains- worn by time, through 100's of millions of years?... Yer out-of-staters: Whose masters are the elements of/from the post WW2 scab-Nazi Eurasian socialists; Which are infected politico 'scar-tissue'("scab") which formed after the war and are still infecting the American culture and its' political parties; Primarily the (formerly named)Democratic(scab-Nazi) Party. Nah, y'have ulterior motivations...
SittingMooseShaman 8 months ago
...from Google Earth...can't even see 'em... These USED TO BE AS TALL AS THE ROCKIES...~100 million years ago...Go bitch @ the Germans who do the same damn thing! So does Canada for the Alberta oil-sands/shale...barely can find 'em on Google Earth... Relatively small...Just make sure the coalers do "land reclamation!" & stream/lake recovery...they have the cash. However this .org shit is nothing less than post-WW2 scab-Nazi Eurasian socialist politico-'scar tissue' "Berlin Betty" continuance!!!
SittingMooseShaman 8 months ago
The communities around the area who is affected by mountain top removal. I wonder why these bright educated people. I wonder who built these towns. That's right it was the coal companies ummm. Dumb ass uneducated people who throw there 2 cents in for a community they don't even live in. Most people around here wanna get reach suing these companies.
gholstein80 1 year ago
It is a double-edge sword. Yes it is bad, BUT the end result is more land, and the ability to create less overcrowding. Maybe you should watch the "Positive Mountain Top Removal" video on youtube.
watch?v=mzPnq5DCqWk&feature=related
NewRiverValleyEMT 3 years ago
While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and radionuclides [5] will be more difficult to address. Technologies do exist to capture and store CO2, but they have not been made available on a large-scale commercial basis due to the high economic costs.[6] For this reason renewable energy sources is a more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative.
cameraperson 3 years ago