How is this “evidence”? It’s a poorly referenced paragraph, written in the conditional, published in a local newspaper. I’d have to see the actual study, but I take it with a shaker of salt, in light of EPA’s bogus mercury “science” (see link above), its equally bogus mountaintop removal “science,” and also its absurd visibility “science.”

For more, please see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48816594/William-Yeatman-EPA-Guilty-of-Environmental-Hyperbole

and

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70535520/William-Yeatman-EPA-s-Shocking-New-Mexico-Power-Grab

RE: “The author of this piece is apparently unaware of the long standing advisories warning against over consumption of locally fresh caught fish. These advisories exist due to mercury contamination. These advisories are present in 48 out of 50 states.”

I am aware of these notices. Indeed, they are a key component of my argument that EPA’s mercury regulation is a joke. EPA’s regulatory rationale for that rule is to protect a make believe population–namely, pregnant, subsistence fisherwomen, who consumer 300 pounds of self-caught fish from only the 99th percentile most polluted inland freshwater bodies, despite the presence of myriad placards and warning along those waterways. Please see, “EPA’s Big Mercury Lie,” which was linked to in the post, available here: http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/04/the-big-mercury-lie/

RE: “So, you have to rely now on your conspiracy that all science, scientists and the scientific method are corrupt.”

Not so! Please see the link above. It is EPA’s own science that renders ridiculous the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.

RE: “They did not rely on the climate change argument. Even though that argument is possibly more compelling. Again, the skeptics have to rely on a conspiracy theory.”

Exactly! And that’s what I wrote–the anti-industrial legal complex used the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule to get a promise that the second coal plant won’t be built. And now, it promises to use the Carbon Pollution Rule to try to prevent the Washington County plant from being built.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 1 in 50 residents nationally who live near ash ponds could get cancer from the arsenic leaking into wells. The EPA also predicts that unlined ash ponds can increase other health risks, such as damage to the liver, kidneys and central nervous system, from contaminants such as lead.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/14/1990320/plant-scherer-ash-pond-worries.html#storylink=cpy

The author of this piece is apparently unaware of the long standing advisories warning against over consumption of locally fresh caught fish. These advisories exist due to mercury contamination. These advisories are present in 48 out of 50 states. In fact every waterway tested by the EPA has contaminated fish. Let me repeat that so as to give skeptics the opportunity to look up the facts on this. Every stream, river and lake that the EPA has tested over the past ten years has contaminated fish. Oh, you say the mercury levels aren’t that high, the EPA has to strict of criteria when it comes to safe levels of mercury. So, you have to rely now on your conspiracy that all science, scientists and the scientific method are corrupt. I love that one, it’s very funny.

The environmentalists used the mercury standards to win their legal cases. They did not rely on the climate change argument. Even though that argument is possibly more compelling. Again, the skeptics have to rely on a conspiracy theory.

The funniest part of this piece comes as a grand punchline at the end. The conspiracy against energy progress (Edison would find this phrase ironically funny in the context of coal-fired power plants being equated with progress in the 21st century) is orchestrated by Obama. Amazingly funny!