Comments on: EPA Publishes Absurd Mercury Reg; Sen. Inhofe Counters; House Sleeps

By: nowsane

nowsane — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:13:04 +0000

I recall reading somewhere that the regulation failed to take into account the intake of selenium, which has the effect of countering methylmercury. so, if that were included, I wonder whether this rule would have been necessary at all, even in EPA’s distorted viewpoint?

By: William Yeatman

William Yeatman — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:34:08 +0000

Greetings David,

I disagree.
“It is estimated that 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma among children annually by 2016 will be prevented, as well as other health benefits.”
–refers to co-benefits engendered by pm 2.5 and so2 reductions incidental to the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. These are not “hazardous air pollutants,” and they are not subject to the regulation. Instead, they are criteria air pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, at levels that protect public safety and then some. These co-benefits have nothing to do with mercury nor with the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.
“50 Tons of annual emissions is significant and will have a measurable reduction in mercury toxicity among Americans.”
–the rule would reduce utility power plant mercury from 29 to 5 tons, if I remember correctly. In any case, the reduction “[won't] have a measurable reduction in mercury toxicity among Americans.” Again, that’s according to EPA, not me.

By: Dennis Odle

Dennis Odle — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:02:38 +0000

The basic problem is that regulatory agencies pass hugely expensive regulations with no real cost/benefit analysis. The mercury affected by this rule is something like 3% of the U.S. total. I am looking for the comparison of the mercury from power plants to the mercury in our new politically correct light bulbs.

By: David McGuire

David McGuire — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:56:11 +0000

Your blog is unfactual and misleading. The EPA ruling says nothing about sushi. Instead it cites innumerable, credible studies linking coal fired plants to high mercury emissions and directly associating mercury exposures, primarily from eating fish, to adverse health effects in Americans.
It is estimated that 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma among children annually by 2016 will be prevented, as well as other health benefits. Women, children and the developing fetus are most at risk for serious health problems resulting from mercury exposure.
Between 300,000 and 600,000 of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year are exposed to significant amounts of the neurotoxin while in the womb putting them at risk to neurological and developmental diseases.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. The Got Mercury calculator at http://www.gotmercury.org estimates the consumption of fish and the associated mercury load based on consumption. Eating just a few meals of mercury laden fish can put one at risk to a number of symptoms ranging from fatigue to dementia.
A study published just last week reports one in 10 babies along Minnesota’s North Shore are born with unhealthy levels of mercury in their bodies, according to a new report on contamination around Lake Superior, the first to look for the pollutant in the blood of U.S. infants.
50 Tons of annual emissions is significant and will have a measurable reduction in mercury toxicity among Americans.
Yet, the benefits of this rule demonstrably outweigh the costs by a huge factor. The EPA’s analysis estimates that the newly finalized rules will save $9 dollars in health care costs for every dollar the industry will pays for the modifications.

By: William Yeatman

William Yeatman — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:17:35 +0000

Tastefully put, A Woman.

Please go to the link embedded in “EPA’s Big Mercury Lie.” In it, I explain how mercury from U.S. power plants does not affect women and their unborn children.

By: Kerner Smith

Kerner Smith — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:22:58 +0000

I have been following this Rule development and the mascinations it has caused to the energy industry, utilities, and coal companies. What a disaster. And to boot, it is OK to charge double other renewable energy source costs for an offshore wind farm so that Deval can be appointed Secretary of Energy under Obama. What Energy Policy?

By: bill allen

bill allen — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:12:35 +0000

The problem is that Boehner is the Neville Chamberlain of the Republican party and will not do anything that his master Obama dislikes.

By: A Woman

A Woman — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:46:17 +0000

If guy’s dicks went limp from mercury, maybe you’d take the mercury issue serisously. But since mercury mostly effects women and their unborn children, from your perspective, who the f cares? And yet I suppose you probably also oppose abortion, eh? Misogny rules the airwaves.