The Myth of Killer Mercury

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bripat9643, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,809
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,325
    By WILLIE SOON AND PAUL DRIESSEN

    OPINION

    Panicking people about fish is no way to protect public health.

    The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce their (already low) emissions of mercury and other air pollutants. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims that while the regulations will cost electricity producers $10.9 billion annually, they will save 17,000 lives and generate up to $140 billion in health benefits.

    There is no factual basis for these assertions. To build its case against mercury, the EPA systematically ignored evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use.

    Mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. A 2009 study found mercury deposits in Antarctic ice across 650,000 years. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees, which absorb it from the environment. This is why our bodies evolved with proteins and antioxidants that help protect us from this and other potential contaminants.

    Another defense comes from selenium, which is found in fish and animals. Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of methylmercury, mercury’s biologically active and more toxic form. Even so, the 200,000,000 tons of mercury naturally present in seawater have never posed a danger to any living being.

    How do America’s coal-burning power plants fit into the picture? They emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. But U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.

    All these emissions enter the global atmospheric system and become part of the U.S. air mass. Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.

    In the face of these minuscule risks, the EPA nevertheless demands that utility companies spend billions every year retrofitting coal-fired power plants that produce half of all U.S. electricity.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for U.S. women and children decreased steadily from 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively safe level established by the EPA. A 17-year evaluation of mercury risk to babies and children by the Seychelles Children Development Study found “no measurable cognitive or behavioral effects” in children who eat several servings of ocean fish every week, much more than most Americans do.

    The World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury-risk standards that are two to three times less restrictive than the EPA’s.

    The EPA ignored these findings. Instead, the agency based its “safe” mercury criteria on a study of Faroe Islanders, whose diet is far removed from our own. They eat few fruits and vegetables, but they do feast on pilot-whale meat and blubber that is laced with mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-but very low in selenium. The study has limited relevance to U.S. populations.

    As a result, the EPA’s actions can be counted on to achieve only one thing-which is to further advance the Obama administration’s oft-stated goal of penalizing hydrocarbon use and driving a transition to unreliable renewable energy.

    The proposed standards will do nothing to reduce exaggerated threats from mercury and other air pollutants. Indeed, the rules will worsen America’s health and well-being-especially for young children and women of child-bearing age. Not only will they raise heating, air conditioning and food costs, but they will scare people away from eating nutritious fish that should be in everyone’s diet.

    America needs affordable, reliable electricity. It needs better health and nutrition. It needs an EPA that focuses on real risks, instead of wasting hard-earned taxpayer and consumer dollars fabricating dangers and evidence.

    The Myth of Killer Mercury | The SPPI Blog
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,571
    Thanks Received:
    3,076
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,690
    I love it! Mercury is harmless, unless of course it is in a CFL light bulb!

    The Danger Lurking in Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs | Fox News

    The energy efficiency of CFLs may be significant, but unlike traditional light bulbs, there is a hidden danger sealed inside each little bulb that requires special handling and disposal.
    Mercury – a potent, developmental neurotoxin that can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to mercury’s toxic effects. Even at low levels, mercury is capable of causing a number of health problems including impair motor functioning, cognitive ability and emotional problems. Higher or prolonged exposure can result in much more serious health problems.
     
  3. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    You REALLY are some kinda stupid. If you've EVER seen how chemists handle mercury in the lab ...... oh nevermind... Go back to snacking on lead paint chips..
     
  4. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    Dr. Willie Wei-Hock Soon (who is most commonly referred to as Willie Soon) is a global warming skeptic. He is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and, since 1992, has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory, where climate denier and Marshall Institute co-founder Robert Jastrow was Director from 1992-2003.

    "U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    you didn't expect him to grown an IQ, did you?

    science is pretend...and the bible is reality in his world.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyR2XeLjYTU]Mercury is good for you! - US Mainstream Media Report, HOW STUPID ARE THE PUBLIC.flv - YouTube[/ame]
     
  7. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    but lead is good..it keeps cost down..stupid

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvEAbgra05I]CNBC anchor says China's a friend even with lead in toys! - YouTube[/ame]
     
  8. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,809
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,325
    Where did anyone say Mercury wasn't dangerous? What a fucking moron.

    The question is, do coal fired power plants produce enough to have any significant impact on our health? Anyone who is smart enough to tie his own shoes can see the answer is clearly "no." For one thing, the EPA grossly exaggerates the dangers of Mercury. For another. the vast bulk of environmental mercury does not come from American coal fired power plants. Try addressing the issues actually being discussed rather than mindlessly bleating "Mercury bad! EPA good!"
     
  9. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,809
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,325
    ROFL!

    You are hardly in any position to be commenting on anyone's intelligence. You and Huggy are platinum members of the liberal retard club. The fact that you chimed in to support his post says more about you than it says about me.

    BTW, I'm an atheist. I hold no stock in anything the Bible has to say.
     
  10. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,809
    Thanks Received:
    8,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,325
    Ah yes, the classic Marxist propaganda ploy of attacking the messenger.

    "He's an evil capitalist exploiter, so what he says can't be right!"

    That may fool left-wing morons, but rational people know a logical fallacy when they see one.

    Facts are facts, no matter what the source of them is. Try addressing the facts he presented. Can you dispute any of them? Do you disagree that Chinese power plants pump 400 tons of Mercury into the air every year? Do you dispute that cremation pumps 26 tons into the air? Which claims do you dispute?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

soon myth of killer mercury