eep sea vent chemistry diagram.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are vastly oversimplifying the concept of heat convection currents in ocean water. The hot water from deep-ocean hydrothermal vents does not simply rise and continue to rise until it reaches the surfaces in a linear-fashion, bringing with with it mercury. The ocean water is far too cold, and cools the hydrothermal water quickly as it rises sufficiently to prevent it from directly reaching the surface. The hot water does not bring the mercury nearly high enough to reach any fish that we catch as humans. Upwelling of warm water occurs largely from other sources and is not simply dictated by hydrothermal vents.
As shown here: Fileeep sea vent chemistry diagram.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are vastly oversimplifying the concept of heat convection currents in ocean water. The hot water from deep-ocean hydrothermal vents does not simply rise and continue to rise until it reaches the surfaces in a linear-fashion, bringing with with it mercury. The ocean water is far too cold, and cools the hydrothermal water quickly as it rises sufficiently to prevent it from directly reaching the surface. The hot water does not bring the mercury nearly high enough to reach any fish that we catch as humans. Upwelling of warm water occurs largely from other sources and is not simply dictated by hydrothermal vents.
As shown here: File
Hey, that's a cute diagram, and all, but it's in Wikipedia. When you use Wikipedia as an authoritative source, you only make yourself look foolish. Furthermore, there is no source mentioned for your cute picture. There are no numbers, no explanation and no source.
Yeah, that's credible.
NOT!
Your theory that undersea vents could spew out 10,000 tons of mercury every year and that none of it would get mixed into the ocean water is too absurd for words.
When you say WE produce twice as much, you really mean China. Our coal fired power plants only produce 44 tons of Mercury each year. China's produce 400 tons of Mercury every year.
Also, what does "twice as much as we should" mean? Who determined how much we should produce?
As another poster pointed out, a single volcano in Hawaii pumps out 270 tons of Mercury every year.
The bottom line is that totally eliminating all Mercury from coal fired power plants won't amount to a fart in the wind in terms of mercury ingestion for Americans.
If the EPA was genuinely concerned about Mercury exposure, it would ban the consumption of fish, because that is the source of 99% of all the Mercury Americans are exposed to, but we all know they are never going to do that. Eco-fascists like you are the last people who are going to call for banning the consumption of fish.
The EPA campaign against coal fire power plants is a huge fraud. Lisa Jackson should be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
So the west coast has that many fewer coal plants? Is Florida covered in coal fired plants?
If you contention that antropogenic mercury wasn't happening was true, if mercury pollution was merely the problem of worldwide vocanic activity, the EAST coast of the USA, wouldn't have pollution levels higher than the rest of the nation.
Note the higher incidence of mercury pollution in the east coast?
That mostly from Mid western COAL-FIRED PLANTS, lad.
The jet stream naturally takes the pollution east where it settles onto the east coast.
Enjoy the fishing here in Maine but don't eat the fish!
Seems to me a lot of the pollution have little to do with the placement of plants and more the geology of the areas. It seems to, in most cases follow heavy geologic deposits of certain types of resources. The UP, MN Arrowhead and Northern WI are loaded with metal. The Mississippi delta is getting runoff from the Ohio and Missouri. What about the Eastern plains and Piedmont?
This map is not conclusive proof that coal plants are problems or you'd see pollution footprints far clearer. And don't forget, nature produces far more mercury pollution than man's activity.
You are vastly oversimplifying the concept of heat convection currents in ocean water. The hot water from deep-ocean hydrothermal vents does not simply rise and continue to rise until it reaches the surfaces in a linear-fashion, bringing with with it mercury. The ocean water is far too cold, and cools the hydrothermal water quickly as it rises sufficiently to prevent it from directly reaching the surface. The hot water does not bring the mercury nearly high enough to reach any fish that we catch as humans. Upwelling of warm water occurs largely from other sources and is not simply dictated by hydrothermal vents.
As shown here: File
Hey, that's a cute diagram, and all, but it's in Wikipedia. When you use Wikipedia as an authoritative source, you only make yourself look foolish. Furthermore, there is no source mentioned for your cute picture. There are no numbers, no explanation and no source.
Yeah, that's credible.
NOT!
Your theory that undersea vents could spew out 10,000 tons of mercury every year and that none of it would get mixed into the ocean water is too absurd for words.
When you say WE produce twice as much, you really mean China. Our coal fired power plants only produce 44 tons of Mercury each year. China's produce 400 tons of Mercury every year.
Also, what does "twice as much as we should" mean? Who determined how much we should produce?
As another poster pointed out, a single volcano in Hawaii pumps out 270 tons of Mercury every year.
The bottom line is that totally eliminating all Mercury from coal fired power plants won't amount to a fart in the wind in terms of mercury ingestion for Americans.
If the EPA was genuinely concerned about Mercury exposure, it would ban the consumption of fish, because that is the source of 99% of all the Mercury Americans are exposed to, but we all know they are never going to do that. Eco-fascists like you are the last people who are going to call for banning the consumption of fish.
The EPA campaign against coal fire power plants is a huge fraud. Lisa Jackson should be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
Why would an 'eco-fascist' be against banning the consumption of fish? This would be something I am for as an eco-fascist. funny name. that would make you an industrio-fascist? willing to shit all over the earth that created you, killing yourself in the process. that's brains right there.
Also, you deny the credibiliy of wikipedia, which is basically an amalgam of other sources worldwide. You have no zero basis on which to attack wikipedia's credibility except that it is damaging to your arguement. In other words, you simply wish it weren't true, and pretend that it isn't.
The source of this diagram, which you claim doesn't exist, was listed right on the page, if you had looked a little further down. Here it is:
USGS Fact Sheet FS-051-02
"Significance of findings: This study, which represents the first effort to estimate rates of atmospheric mercury deposition using ice cores from mid-latitude regions, enabled scientists to clearly discern differences in natural and anthropogenic mercury sources over time. Scientists found that the amount of mercury deposited on the North American continent from atmospheric sources increased significantly during industrialization. In addition, analysis of ice cores indicated a dramatic decrease in atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 15-20 years, reflecting perhaps potential effects of the Clean Air Act and other management practices to reduce emissions. Information of this kind is necessary for establishing baseline levels of mercury in the environment, thereby providing crucial information for scientifically defensible resource-management, policy, and regulatory decisions being made now and in the future."
You're reaction and inability to see this for what it is, is evidence that when you don't want to see something, you won't.
He then uses quotes from the article to form his whole argument. And if you want to know more about the author of the OP article just google Jim Hoft and see what kind of whack job that Bripat takes as the proponent of gospel truth. 
Again, with what are you going to replace the 49% of electricity generated by burning coal?
So replace old, cheap, and dependable with unproven and expensive for political ideology?
So replace old, cheap, and dependable with unproven and expensive for political ideology?
Bad plan.
Wood...that is so Neandrethal/Cromagon...
cheap, but still 3 times more expensive than coal.So replace old, cheap, and dependable with unproven and expensive for political ideology?
Bad plan.
Natural gas is cheap.
Asks the neanderthal.
