The generation of electricity does indeed generate pollution, but since plants tend to stay in one place and have a small number of exhaust stacks, it's much cheaper and easier to control emissions. The "big" stuff that falls out near the plant is usually collected very efficiently before it escapes - it's the much smaller stuff (about a millionth of a meter in size) that is harder to control and more damaging to health. The problem with coal fly ash is that it really isn't what occurs naturally - in particular, the metals can be in those very small particles, and although everyone needs to ingest them in tiny amounts to stay healthy, breathing them is a different issue. As far as the aromatics added to gasoline and diesel are concerned, they're pretty well destroyed when you burn the fuel. They're just different forms of carbon and hydrogen compared to most of what's in gasoline. They are nasty, but they aren't emitted in amounts anywhere close to what you used to see with lead.
As much as it's a pleasure to see those coal-burning steamers chug away, they do indeed generate harmful pollution. One can compare emissions to any number of other sources that the anti-smoke folks use on a routine basis, but the issue is that the coal-burning steamers generate a lot of highly visible emissions per trip. The total may be small, but you can definitely see, smell, and feel the emissions. The only way this can be successfully fought off is to prove that there are no adverse health effects from coal-burning locos in Durango, and that will take time and money. It's not a sure thing that such a study would show no effects, and it's not even likely that those who are philosophically opposed will accept the results. But otherwise, the existing science would indicate that burning coal in an uncontrolled boiler is a problem.
Andy
