Good to know. In that case, assuming 100% of the coal arrives by rail to the Port of Oakland, and there is an overall net increase in shipping activity, it stan

Good to know. In that case, assuming 100% of the coal arrives by rail to the Port of Oakland, and there is an overall net increase in shipping activity, it stands to logical reason that there might be an issue with changing truck traffic for other loads in the port - this would then have a direct affect on the locals existing health problems that are already documented. Clearly the reality of the situation would still be at odds with the insane claim that additional coal shipments wouldn't have any studied affect on the locals. Edit: I have been banned again for something, I guess it's too many comments with too many downvotes?. Since I'm not allowed to reply, here is my comment reply to the comment below this. There is not one single, individual argument about this - there are many. Coal is singled out here likely because it is one of the most damaging things that could be shipped through the port. I'm not the one who singled it out. But clearly, if the locals are concerned about their health, than this is a major thing to look at. Additionally, I was taking the quote of the port loading commercial developer, who said specifically that there would be no health impact to locals, or no study about it - and I am responding that this is false. Either he is lying or does not know the truth.