Stop mercury pollution now

[CrusaderFrank]

Duh, what's gonna happen when the mercury light bulbs burn out and they are thrown away in landfills? How fullproof is the manufacturing process that uses mercury to make millions of light bulbs? You practically have to call a haz-mat team when one breaks.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/crusaderfrank-albums-facts-hurt-*****-slap-picture4064-cf-factshurt.jpg

Chris should get some ice for that slap

 

[flacaltenn]

I give Chris credit for talking about REAL pollution -- instead of phoney CO2 pollution for a change.

Calling CO2 a pollutant has confused Joe Sixpack to the point where he doesn't CARE as much about pollution if the GOVT is gonna insist that his every breath contains pollutants.

We've been nagged NUMB by the Eco-Nauts..


HOWEVER -- What Chris should REALLY be worried about is not the MERCURY from Coal plants, but the tons of RADIOACTIVE materials spewed from these plants every year.. More so than any nuclear plant disaster with the exception of Chernobyl... MUCH bigger immediate health issue. You can treated relatively easily for Mercury poisoning, but DNA mutation is forever...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives need their own country

 

[skookerasbil]

We should also ban lead. Let's not discriminate between elements. That would not be fair.

Hydrogen should be the next to go.

the k0ks wont be happy until they ban ALL elements.

 

[skookerasbil]

Progressives need their own country

so true.............

I say give 'em all of Califonia and have at it with the utopia shit.

 

[bripat9643]

So what? No one has died from air pollution in a century. Air pollution was never much that much of a health threat in this country. It was mostly just unsightly, and it has been reduced to the point where it is unnoticeable. It definitely isn't a health threat.


"No one has died from air pollution in a century" has to be one of the most ignorants statements ever posted on these boards.
Really? Then post the name of a person with "death by air pollution" on his death certificate.

World Health Experts Warn Air Pollution Kills Two Million a Year
World Health Experts Warn Air Pollution Kills Two Million a Year

UK air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths a year, say MPs
UK air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths a year, say MPs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States
Medscape: Medscape Access

ROFL! You call these credible? There nothing but statistical inferences based on the most dubious assumptions imaginable.

Your www.ens_newswire.com site is obviously wacko environmentalist propaganda. Furthermore, the WHO, which your article quotes, is a socialist propaganda organ. Third, we are discussing air pollution in the United States, not Beijing China.

The Guardian is a notorious left-wing anti-capitalist rag. The article sited is quoting a bunch of politicians. Yeah, that's credible, quoting a bunch of professional liars looking for an excuse to increase their power over your life.

I'm not paying for a subscription to your last site, so it's irrelevant.

Show us hard proof of someone air pollution has actually killed. Just one.

 

[bripat9643]

We should also ban lead. Let's not discriminate between elements. That would not be fair.

Hydrogen should be the next to go.

the k0ks wont be happy until they ban ALL elements.

Capitalism is what they are trying to ban. They won't be happy until we're all living like feudal serfs.

 

[konradv]

Duh, what's gonna happen when the mercury light bulbs burn out and they are thrown away in landfills? How fullproof is the manufacturing process that uses mercury to make millions of light bulbs? You practically have to call a haz-mat team when one breaks.

Hazmat team? Are we supposed to fall for that just because you said "practically". Not surprising you got "Thanks" from the board nitwits.

 

[bripat9643]

He has as much an ideological axe to grind as uncensored2008. They'd rather yell than back up their claims as if that gives more credence to their for-profit, blatherings. Interestingly, BOTH are conservative

Yeah, right, and you don't have an "ideological axe to grind?"

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[whitehall]

The left has a full court press going on all fronts. It's their last chance to bring down the US to the status of a 3rd world country and they are going to give it all they have.

 

[Greengoo]

Well, maybe your child is more susceptible to mercury poisoning. We ( the human population in parts of america) have been exposed to mercury for a very long time now. So, why try and get Congress to help reduce or remove human exposure to mercury in everyday occurrence. I just think there are more important things to push for. You are just one case of millions, but the fact that we can contract or develop many harmful diseases is something that is not something we can control control. To possibly eliminate the exposure of mercury would take decades or longer before any real work is done.

 

[kiwiman127]

So what? No one has died from air pollution in a century. Air pollution was never much that much of a health threat in this country. It was mostly just unsightly, and it has been reduced to the point where it is unnoticeable. It definitely isn't a health threat.


"No one has died from air pollution in a century" has to be one of the most ignorants statements ever posted on these boards.
Really? Then post the name of a person with "death by air pollution" on his death certificate.

World Health Experts Warn Air Pollution Kills Two Million a Year
World Health Experts Warn Air Pollution Kills Two Million a Year

UK air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths a year, say MPs
UK air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths a year, say MPs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States
Medscape: Medscape Access

ROFL! You call these credible? There nothing but statistical inferences based on the most dubious assumptions imaginable.

Your www.ens_newswire.com site is obviously wacko environmentalist propaganda. Furthermore, the WHO, which your article quotes, is a socialist propaganda organ. Third, we are discussing air pollution in the United States, not Beijing China.

The Guardian is a notorious left-wing anti-capitalist rag. The article sited is quoting a bunch of politicians. Yeah, that's credible, quoting a bunch of professional liars looking for an excuse to increase their power over your life.

I'm not paying for a subscription to your last site, so it's irrelevant.

Show us hard proof of someone air pollution has actually killed. Just one.

What a response! It's a classic case of the serious denial of well known facts.

Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States

New York (MedscapeWire) Oct 3 — A study in the October issue of the European Respiratory Journal describes how fine dust particles released into the atmosphere really constitute an independent cause of mortality, and its authors call for urgent review of permitted pollution limits. At the same time, the study conclusively invalidates the theory that a large proportion of such deaths are due to seasonal epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.

The harmful effect of air pollution on health, and especially on the lungs, is now beyond any doubt, as established recently in Europe by an international study that caused a considerable stir. And the situation has now been found to be equally alarming in the United States.

Most of the blame can be laid on dangerous microparticles present in exhaust gases. The name given by the specialists to such tiny dust particles is PM10s (PM stands for "particulate matter" and the 10 refers to a diameter size of less than 10 microns). Owing to their microscopic size, these dust particles penetrate deep into the lung alveoli, causing serious respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.

The study looked at 5 major US cities that carry out daily measurements of PM10 concentration in the atmosphere, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Led by Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, the team of scientists estimated the number of deaths potentially related to air pollution on a day-to-day basis.

According to the study, Minneapolis carries the highest risk factor: for every 10-mcg increment in the dust particles per cubic meter, the rate of daily mortality increases there by 1.3%. In Pittsburgh and Detroit, for the same concentration of pollutants, excess mortality is only 0.80% and 0.77%, again for every 10-mcg increment in pollution. The most populated city (Chicago, with 5 million inhabitants) comes fourth, and in Seattle the figure drops to only 0.44%.

The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.

The data used for the study were collected between 1986 and 1993. During that period, the 5 cities showed a daily pollution rate of around 30 mcg per cubic meter, which is equivalent to about 3% excess mortality. Because this pollution rate is far below the authorized limit of 150 mcg, however, Schwartz and colleagues wondered whether some of the deaths should not be attributed to epidemics of respiratory diseases, such as those related to influenza or pneumonia.

To find out, they identified critical periods by looking at the number of daily hospital admissions for pneumonia: if the number exceeded a certain threshold for 10 days or more, they would classify the outbreak as an epidemic. But while they did observe a slight decrease in the number of deaths due to pollution at the time of such respiratory epidemics, Schwartz and colleagues estimated that this effect could on the whole be considered negligible. "Our results confirm the strength of the causality between PM10 exposure and deaths," according to Alfesio Braga, coauthor of the study. "They show that this association is not due to any other external effects."

Medscape: Medscape Access

If one does a Google search using the words "Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States", a person can find the report and read it without a subscription.

Now, let me guess,,Medscape is a tool of of the leftist, socialist eco-nuts!

Can anyone find a documented study that says air pollution doesn't kill?

 

[kiwiman127]

So what? No one has died from air pollution in a century. Air pollution was never much that much of a health threat in this country. It was mostly just unsightly, and it has been reduced to the point where it is unnoticeable. It definitely isn't a health threat.


"No one has died from air pollution in a century" has to be one of the most ignorants statements ever posted on these boards.

World Health Experts Warn Air Pollution Kills Two Million a Year
World Health Experts Warn Air Pollution Kills Two Million a Year

UK air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths a year, say MPs
UK air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths a year, say MPs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States
Medscape: Medscape Access

Care to provide evidence that mercury caused the deaths? Wanna prove any of the claims made about mercury in this thread? Wanna explain how we have had coal plants for what? Over 100 years and yet NOW it is a problem?

I can offer you a statement from that leftist American Lung Association.

"The cleanup of toxic air pollution from oil and coal-fired power plants is long overdue. When final, the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – required by the Clean Air Act – will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into our air each year. The wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants includes: arsenic; lead and other metals; mercury; dioxins; formaldehyde and benzene; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride.

Congress first required EPA to clean up toxic air pollution from industries in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Ever since, coal-using electric utilities have successfully deployed a range of tactics to delay the regulations. Those at high risk of health effects from breathing the hazardous power plant air pollutants include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular disease; diabetics; people with low incomes; and healthy adults who work or exercise outdoors. They are counting on and expecting EPA to do the job correctly. Congress required it and millions of Americans are counting on EPA to protect their health."
American Lung Association Urges EPA to Finalize Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants - American Lung Association

Do you people who are fighting against clean air even have a clue about the costs of medical care as a result of the effects of pollution and how it effects your health care insurance premiums? Obviously you folks don't care about all the people who suffer medical repercussions from air pollution.

 

[gslack]

So let me get my head around this if I can without giggling to death....

Okay so according to the "you gotta do what they say cause they know best" or the "lets regulate regulations for the sake of regulation" crowds, we are supposed to be okay with mercury in vaccines, but not okay for trace amounts in the exhaust in everything we use everyday... Does that sound about right??

Tell you alarmist ditto heads what, you take the mercury out of vaccines and all medical applications, stop telling me trace amounts is okay in injections, and maybe I will be concerned over the trace amounts in fumes from things WE ALL USE DAILY..

Deal?

 

[konradv]

So let me get my head around this if I can without giggling to death....

Okay so according to the "you gotta do what they say cause they know best" or the "lets regulate regulations for the sake of regulation" crowds, we are supposed to be okay with mercury in vaccines, but not okay for trace amounts in the exhaust in everything we use everyday... Does that sound about right??

Tell you alarmist ditto heads what, you take the mercury out of vaccines and all medical applications, stop telling me trace amounts is okay in injections, and maybe I will be concerned over the trace amounts in fumes from things WE ALL USE DAILY..

Deal?

That's a red-herring. No one is OK about mercury. It's all about lowering total exposure. Once again you post to confuse, rather than elucidate, a topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

(CNN) -- This November, the Obama administration is expected to move forward with long overdue safeguards that would finally protect our families from mercury pollution. As the mother of four children, I can only say it's about time.

The EPA was first charged with limiting toxic air pollutants such as mercury during the Bush administration -- the first Bush administration. I don't know how many children have been exposed to dangerous levels of this neurotoxin during the subsequent 20-plus years of foot-dragging, but I do know that my eldest daughter was one of them.

When Sophie was 4 years old, we discovered that her mercury levels were elevated. We were already concerned because her learning had leveled off and in some notable ways even backslid. But it was only by chance that we realized she was being poisoned. Because we lived in an old house with lead paint, we had been following our pediatrician's advice to have our children tested regularly for lead and other heavy metals. Only because of this were we lucky enough to learn about our daughter's elevated mercury levels before it was too late.

How does a healthy, well-nourished child get mercury poisoning in her own home? By far the most common exposure to mercury comes from eating contaminated fish. Sophie adored tuna fish sandwiches and ate one or two a week. That was a small amount but enough to cause her harm. When, on a doctor's advice, we took fish out of her diet, her mercury levels declined.

We must stop allowing mercury pollution - CNN.com

Let's build a couple dozen new nuke power plants. We can use the money being wasted on solar, wind and ethanol.

 

[hjmick]

(CNN) -- This November, the Obama administration is expected to move forward with long overdue safeguards that would finally protect our families from mercury pollution. As the mother of four children, I can only say it's about time.

The EPA was first charged with limiting toxic air pollutants such as mercury during the Bush administration -- the first Bush administration. I don't know how many children have been exposed to dangerous levels of this neurotoxin during the subsequent 20-plus years of foot-dragging, but I do know that my eldest daughter was one of them.

When Sophie was 4 years old, we discovered that her mercury levels were elevated. We were already concerned because her learning had leveled off and in some notable ways even backslid. But it was only by chance that we realized she was being poisoned. Because we lived in an old house with lead paint, we had been following our pediatrician's advice to have our children tested regularly for lead and other heavy metals. Only because of this were we lucky enough to learn about our daughter's elevated mercury levels before it was too late.

How does a healthy, well-nourished child get mercury poisoning in her own home? By far the most common exposure to mercury comes from eating contaminated fish. Sophie adored tuna fish sandwiches and ate one or two a week. That was a small amount but enough to cause her harm. When, on a doctor's advice, we took fish out of her diet, her mercury levels declined.

We must stop allowing mercury pollution - CNN.com

Obama's planning to ban CFLs? Gutsy move and a good decision. Probably piss off the Chinese who make them as well...

 

[gslack]

So let me get my head around this if I can without giggling to death....

Okay so according to the "you gotta do what they say cause they know best" or the "lets regulate regulations for the sake of regulation" crowds, we are supposed to be okay with mercury in vaccines, but not okay for trace amounts in the exhaust in everything we use everyday... Does that sound about right??

Tell you alarmist ditto heads what, you take the mercury out of vaccines and all medical applications, stop telling me trace amounts is okay in injections, and maybe I will be concerned over the trace amounts in fumes from things WE ALL USE DAILY..

Deal?

That's a red-herring. No one is OK about mercury. It's all about lowering total exposure. Once again you post to confuse, rather than elucidate, a topic.

No now see junior thats where you are wrong again.. I speak about the hypocrisy going on and the completely ignorant way we are told conflicting things by many of the same people.. Lowering total exposure would be to start with the medical applications, seeing as how that would require the least amount of new laws, and the most benefit at the least cost.. They INJECT that mercury into people, I hardly consider a trace amount from an exhaust gas to be on the same level...

Now try and keep up..

 

[konradv]

So let me get my head around this if I can without giggling to death....

Okay so according to the "you gotta do what they say cause they know best" or the "lets regulate regulations for the sake of regulation" crowds, we are supposed to be okay with mercury in vaccines, but not okay for trace amounts in the exhaust in everything we use everyday... Does that sound about right??

Tell you alarmist ditto heads what, you take the mercury out of vaccines and all medical applications, stop telling me trace amounts is okay in injections, and maybe I will be concerned over the trace amounts in fumes from things WE ALL USE DAILY..

Deal?

That's a red-herring. No one is OK about mercury. It's all about lowering total exposure. Once again you post to confuse, rather than elucidate, a topic.

No now see junior thats where you are wrong again.. I speak about the hypocrisy going on and the completely ignorant way we are told conflicting things by many of the same people.. Lowering total exposure would be to start with the medical applications, seeing as how that would require the least amount of new laws, and the most benefit at the least cost.. They INJECT that mercury into people, I hardly consider a trace amount from an exhaust gas to be on the same level...

Mercury in vaccines has dropped percipituously in recent years due to the autism scare, so that example doesn't really seem to apply, and CFLs are contained and innocuous when handled and disposed of properly. The main source of mercury is undoubtedly found in the air and water as a result of industrial waste. We eat and breath DAILY. How often do you get vaccines and what % actually have mercury?

 

[gslack]

That's a red-herring. No one is OK about mercury. It's all about lowering total exposure. Once again you post to confuse, rather than elucidate, a topic.

No now see junior thats where you are wrong again.. I speak about the hypocrisy going on and the completely ignorant way we are told conflicting things by many of the same people.. Lowering total exposure would be to start with the medical applications, seeing as how that would require the least amount of new laws, and the most benefit at the least cost.. They INJECT that mercury into people, I hardly consider a trace amount from an exhaust gas to be on the same level...

Mercury in vaccines has dropped percipituously in recent years due to the autism scare, so that example doesn't really seem to apply, and CFLs are contained and innocuous when handled and disposed of properly. The main source of mercury is undoubtedly found in the air and water as a result of industrial waste. We eat and breath DAILY. How often do you get vaccines and what % actually have mercury?

Do you have any proof of any of that junior? tell you what you show me the proof then I may decide differently, but just your word won't cut it.. And EPA statistics that cannot show anything but possibilities, are not proof of anything other than possibilities..