Well then don't call yourselves the "Union of Concerned Scientists" when most of you are not. Make it the "Union of Concerned Analysts" which most of you are, or the Union of Concerned Investigative Journalists" which all of you are not. But of course those names don't add that veneer of respectability.
I concede that you have a valid point.
I'm not disputing the figures, but you are hardly likely to get an unbiased view from that "union".
I don't think their statement is a matter of bias. The figures simply show that coal mining is not scott free in terms of human life and health. On the face of it those mining figures are probably an acceptable risk but they are not the main reason we are moving away from coal. It's after it's burned the trouble starts. The rest of the article is food for thought.
marginally more dangerous in the US than other forms of mining (0.1 deaths per million production hours)
This means coal mining is 50% more dangerous than other mining.
If the profitability of my business increased 'marginally' by 50% over current figures I'd be very happy.
