Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer

[Bfgrn]

CG, that is just the attitude that the OWS movement needs you to take. Thank you, from myself and the rest. You have defined the enemy of our children wonderfully. Our children are negatively affected by breathing mercury and lead? "Can't hear you, the rustling of the bucks of big energy is too loud".

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

Big government debt mortgages our children's future

 

[daveman]

CG, that is just the attitude that the OWS movement needs you to take. Thank you, from myself and the rest. You have defined the enemy of our children wonderfully. Our children are negatively affected by breathing mercury and lead? "Can't hear you, the rustling of the bucks of big energy is too loud".

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

Big government debt mortgages our children's future

Funny, considering you support big debt when it's a Democrat writing the bad checks.

 

[Bfgrn]

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

Big government debt mortgages our children's future

Funny, considering you support big debt when it's a Democrat writing the bad checks.

 

[bripat9643]

CO2 is not a pollutant. Emissions of other substances from coal fired power plants are well below levels that could possibly be considered harmful. Mercury in the environment is almost entirely from natural sources. The latest jihad against mercury is just a backdoor attempt for Obama to implement is agenda to drive carbon fuels out of business.

WTF do you come up with this shit?

Toxic Mercury From Coal Plants Unregulated

The Bush Administration’s regulatory approach to toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants was struck down by a federal court that concluded the government flouted health law in a manner reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. The National Academies’ National Research Council has found that some 60,000 newborns a year are at risk for neurological problems such as impaired motor function due to mercury—the largest source of which is coal-fired power plants. The Food and Drug Administration urges pregnant women to limit fish intake due to widespread contamination with mercury that made its way into the food chain. In its waning days, the Clinton administration listed mercury as a toxic substance subject to strict regulation as a health threat, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under President Bush, proposed a rule to reclassify mercury from coal-fired plants under a different section of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA’s rule would have set an overall limit on mercury, while giving coal plants flexibility to meet the goal or purchase “emissions rights” from other plants—known as a “cap-and-trade” program. The EPA said it would have cut the mercury being released in the air by 70 percent by 2018 — an improvement, but less strenuous than the 90 percent reduction by 2008 that was hoped for under the Clinton administration determination. In issuing the new rule and reclassifying coal plant mercury, the EPA used language lifted — in some cases verbatim — from utility industry law and lobby firm Latham & Watkins, as well as West Associates, a research and advocacy group. It was subsequently revealed that the EPA’s own air policy administrator was unaware of the private firms’ involvement, and that insertion of the language had actually been pushed by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy. Critics, including the EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, said the plan could help create “hot spots” around power plants that would disproportionately hurt communities living in the shadow of smokestacks, because mercury emissions do not disperse evenly. Allowing dirtier power plants to purchase additional pollution credits would add to that burden. EPA’s own inspector general found that the agency’s approach “was compromised.” Ultimately, New Jersey led a group of states that challenged the mercury rules, and in February 2008, a federal appeals court delivered a unanimous ruling throwing out EPA’s reclassification of mercury from one section of the CAA to another. The court said EPA’s explanation “deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA’s desires for the plain text [of the CAA].” But EPA has argued that the Clinton administration’s original finding on mercury was “erroneous,” based on anticipated environmental effects rather than on health effects. The EPA says it took into consideration the health effects, the control technologies and the potential impacts on the electricity system in coming up with its cap-and trade approach, which it said would “achieve substantial, cost-effective reductions in mercury emissions from power plants.”

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I come up with it from reality:

EPA: Environmental Propaganda Activists - Willie Soon - Townhall Conservative

The latest government, university and independent studies reveal that those power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. However, US forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tpy; Chinese power plants eject 400 tpy; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year!

Here's the entire story:

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules, requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce (already low) emissions of mercury and 83 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, EPA systematically ignored evidence and ignored clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use.

Mercury (Hg) has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. A 2009 study found numerous spikes (and drops) in mercury deposition in Antarctic ice over the past 650,000-years. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and in 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.

A further 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. Thus, the 200,000,000 tons of mercury naturally present in seawater have never posed a danger to any living being, even though they could theoretically be converted into methylmercury.

Modern technologies enable us to detect infinitesimal amounts in air and water. However, quantities of mercury measured in lake waters are often no more than 0.00000001 gram of mercury per liter. Lab technicians typically wear special garments when measuring mercury levels, not to protect themselves – but to ensure accurate measurements, because even breathing on a sample can triple a reading! How do America’s coal-burning power plants enter into the picture?

The latest government, university and independent studies reveal that those power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. However, US forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tpy; Chinese power plants eject 400 tpy; 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 US air mass. Thus, US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air Americans breathe. Even eliminating every milligram of this mercury will do nothing about the other 99.5% in America’s atmosphere. And yet, in the face of these minuscule risks, EPA nevertheless demands that utility companies spend billions every year retrofitting coal-fired power plants that produce half of all US electricity, and 70-98% of electricity in twelve states. Its regulators simultaneously ignore the positive results of medical studies that clearly show its new restrictions are not needed and will not improve people’s health.

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for US women and children decreased steadily 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively “safe” level established by 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 US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury risk standards that are 2-3 times less restrictive than EPA’s. Under WHO and ATSDR guidelines, no American children are even remotely at risk from mercury.

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 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 US populations. Finally, EPA maintains that mercury deposition, its conversion to methylmercury, and MeHg accumulation in fish and humans is a simple process that can be controlled by curtailing emissions from US power plants. However, mercury emissions (from all sources) and raw mercury levels in fresh or ocean waters are only part of the story.

Complex, nonlinear interactions among at least 50 natural variables control the biological and chemical processes that govern elemental mercury conversion to methylmercury and MeHg accumulation in fish. Those variables, and selenium levels in fish tissue, are beyond anyone’s ability to control.

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, making coal-based electricity prices “skyrocket,” 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, rather than improve America’s health – especially for young children and women of child-bearing age. Not only will they raise heating, air conditioning and food costs; they will scare people away from 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.

 

[Sunshine]

Jeff Schweitzer: Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer

That the Grand Old Party is hostile to environmental regulation is no grand revelation. But the most recent assault on the EPA is, even for Republicans and Tea Party enthusiasts, an unusually reckless and irresponsible attack on reasonable attempts to clean our air. We are talking coal ash. Nothing like taking in some lead, cadmium and mercury with each breath and every sip of water to brighten one's day. That is just the price we must pay to reduce government interference into our private affairs.

But coal is particularly nasty. Yes, the attraction to coal is powerful and obvious because the United States sits on a reserve of nearly 250 billion tons of coal, 112 billion of which are high-quality bituminous and anthracite coals; the remainder mainly being lower-energy and dirtier lignite. With such abundance the siren song of energy independence is difficult to resist. However, burning even the highest quality anthracite is dirty business. One 500 MW power plant generates about 3 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. Other toxic byproducts include fine-grain particulates, heavy metals like mercury, lead, chromium and nickel, trace elements such as arsenic and selenium, and various organics like dichloroethane, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and trichloroethylene. Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are common pollutants from coal, and are found at higher levels in anthracite than in bituminous coal. The known health consequences of this toxic brew of air and water pollution are many, and include nervous system problems in infants and children, asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, a suite of cardiovascular problems and kidney disease. The environmental impacts are well documented, and not pretty.

But all of those inconvenient truths are just part of a liberal conspiracy if you believe the GOP.

And one wonders just why anybody believes anything the GOP has to say anymore. Talk about some nasty agendas.

By this logic everyone who lives where the air is polluted should be getting cancer but they do not. Cancer isn't even the number 1 disease in the US; heart disease is numero uno.

So, how do you explain the number of people who live in a polluted environment now who do not get cancer? And how do you explain the number of people who live in a clean environment now who do get cancer?

 

[Bfgrn]

CO2 is not a pollutant. Emissions of other substances from coal fired power plants are well below levels that could possibly be considered harmful. Mercury in the environment is almost entirely from natural sources. The latest jihad against mercury is just a backdoor attempt for Obama to implement is agenda to drive carbon fuels out of business.

WTF do you come up with this shit?

Toxic Mercury From Coal Plants Unregulated

The Bush Administration’s regulatory approach to toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants was struck down by a federal court that concluded the government flouted health law in a manner reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. The National Academies’ National Research Council has found that some 60,000 newborns a year are at risk for neurological problems such as impaired motor function due to mercury—the largest source of which is coal-fired power plants. The Food and Drug Administration urges pregnant women to limit fish intake due to widespread contamination with mercury that made its way into the food chain. In its waning days, the Clinton administration listed mercury as a toxic substance subject to strict regulation as a health threat, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under President Bush, proposed a rule to reclassify mercury from coal-fired plants under a different section of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA’s rule would have set an overall limit on mercury, while giving coal plants flexibility to meet the goal or purchase “emissions rights” from other plants—known as a “cap-and-trade” program. The EPA said it would have cut the mercury being released in the air by 70 percent by 2018 — an improvement, but less strenuous than the 90 percent reduction by 2008 that was hoped for under the Clinton administration determination. In issuing the new rule and reclassifying coal plant mercury, the EPA used language lifted — in some cases verbatim — from utility industry law and lobby firm Latham & Watkins, as well as West Associates, a research and advocacy group. It was subsequently revealed that the EPA’s own air policy administrator was unaware of the private firms’ involvement, and that insertion of the language had actually been pushed by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy. Critics, including the EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, said the plan could help create “hot spots” around power plants that would disproportionately hurt communities living in the shadow of smokestacks, because mercury emissions do not disperse evenly. Allowing dirtier power plants to purchase additional pollution credits would add to that burden. EPA’s own inspector general found that the agency’s approach “was compromised.” Ultimately, New Jersey led a group of states that challenged the mercury rules, and in February 2008, a federal appeals court delivered a unanimous ruling throwing out EPA’s reclassification of mercury from one section of the CAA to another. The court said EPA’s explanation “deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA’s desires for the plain text [of the CAA].” But EPA has argued that the Clinton administration’s original finding on mercury was “erroneous,” based on anticipated environmental effects rather than on health effects. The EPA says it took into consideration the health effects, the control technologies and the potential impacts on the electricity system in coming up with its cap-and trade approach, which it said would “achieve substantial, cost-effective reductions in mercury emissions from power plants.”

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I come up with it from reality:

EPA: Environmental Propaganda Activists - Willie Soon - Townhall Conservative

The latest government, university and independent studies reveal that those power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. However, US forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tpy; Chinese power plants eject 400 tpy; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year!

Here's the entire story:

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules, requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce (already low) emissions of mercury and 83 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, EPA systematically ignored evidence and ignored clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use.

Mercury (Hg) has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. A 2009 study found numerous spikes (and drops) in mercury deposition in Antarctic ice over the past 650,000-years. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and in 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.

A further 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. Thus, the 200,000,000 tons of mercury naturally present in seawater have never posed a danger to any living being, even though they could theoretically be converted into methylmercury.

Modern technologies enable us to detect infinitesimal amounts in air and water. However, quantities of mercury measured in lake waters are often no more than 0.00000001 gram of mercury per liter. Lab technicians typically wear special garments when measuring mercury levels, not to protect themselves – but to ensure accurate measurements, because even breathing on a sample can triple a reading! How do America’s coal-burning power plants enter into the picture?

The latest government, university and independent studies reveal that those power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. However, US forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tpy; Chinese power plants eject 400 tpy; 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 US air mass. Thus, US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air Americans breathe. Even eliminating every milligram of this mercury will do nothing about the other 99.5% in America’s atmosphere. And yet, in the face of these minuscule risks, EPA nevertheless demands that utility companies spend billions every year retrofitting coal-fired power plants that produce half of all US electricity, and 70-98% of electricity in twelve states. Its regulators simultaneously ignore the positive results of medical studies that clearly show its new restrictions are not needed and will not improve people’s health.

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for US women and children decreased steadily 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively “safe” level established by 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 US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury risk standards that are 2-3 times less restrictive than EPA’s. Under WHO and ATSDR guidelines, no American children are even remotely at risk from mercury.

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 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 US populations. Finally, EPA maintains that mercury deposition, its conversion to methylmercury, and MeHg accumulation in fish and humans is a simple process that can be controlled by curtailing emissions from US power plants. However, mercury emissions (from all sources) and raw mercury levels in fresh or ocean waters are only part of the story.

Complex, nonlinear interactions among at least 50 natural variables control the biological and chemical processes that govern elemental mercury conversion to methylmercury and MeHg accumulation in fish. Those variables, and selenium levels in fish tissue, are beyond anyone’s ability to control.

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, making coal-based electricity prices “skyrocket,” 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, rather than improve America’s health – especially for young children and women of child-bearing age. Not only will they raise heating, air conditioning and food costs; they will scare people away from 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.

ALWAYS the same dirty energy funding behind every fucking thing your right wing parrots spew.

Willie Soon

"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.

 

[Sunshine]

WTF do you come up with this shit?

Toxic Mercury From Coal Plants Unregulated

The Bush Administration’s regulatory approach to toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants was struck down by a federal court that concluded the government flouted health law in a manner reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. The National Academies’ National Research Council has found that some 60,000 newborns a year are at risk for neurological problems such as impaired motor function due to mercury—the largest source of which is coal-fired power plants. The Food and Drug Administration urges pregnant women to limit fish intake due to widespread contamination with mercury that made its way into the food chain. In its waning days, the Clinton administration listed mercury as a toxic substance subject to strict regulation as a health threat, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under President Bush, proposed a rule to reclassify mercury from coal-fired plants under a different section of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA’s rule would have set an overall limit on mercury, while giving coal plants flexibility to meet the goal or purchase “emissions rights” from other plants—known as a “cap-and-trade” program. The EPA said it would have cut the mercury being released in the air by 70 percent by 2018 — an improvement, but less strenuous than the 90 percent reduction by 2008 that was hoped for under the Clinton administration determination. In issuing the new rule and reclassifying coal plant mercury, the EPA used language lifted — in some cases verbatim — from utility industry law and lobby firm Latham & Watkins, as well as West Associates, a research and advocacy group. It was subsequently revealed that the EPA’s own air policy administrator was unaware of the private firms’ involvement, and that insertion of the language had actually been pushed by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy. Critics, including the EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, said the plan could help create “hot spots” around power plants that would disproportionately hurt communities living in the shadow of smokestacks, because mercury emissions do not disperse evenly. Allowing dirtier power plants to purchase additional pollution credits would add to that burden. EPA’s own inspector general found that the agency’s approach “was compromised.” Ultimately, New Jersey led a group of states that challenged the mercury rules, and in February 2008, a federal appeals court delivered a unanimous ruling throwing out EPA’s reclassification of mercury from one section of the CAA to another. The court said EPA’s explanation “deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA’s desires for the plain text [of the CAA].” But EPA has argued that the Clinton administration’s original finding on mercury was “erroneous,” based on anticipated environmental effects rather than on health effects. The EPA says it took into consideration the health effects, the control technologies and the potential impacts on the electricity system in coming up with its cap-and trade approach, which it said would “achieve substantial, cost-effective reductions in mercury emissions from power plants.”

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I come up with it from reality:

EPA: Environmental Propaganda Activists - Willie Soon - Townhall Conservative



Here's the entire story:

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules, requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce (already low) emissions of mercury and 83 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, EPA systematically ignored evidence and ignored clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use.

Mercury (Hg) has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. A 2009 study found numerous spikes (and drops) in mercury deposition in Antarctic ice over the past 650,000-years. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and in 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.

A further 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. Thus, the 200,000,000 tons of mercury naturally present in seawater have never posed a danger to any living being, even though they could theoretically be converted into methylmercury.

Modern technologies enable us to detect infinitesimal amounts in air and water. However, quantities of mercury measured in lake waters are often no more than 0.00000001 gram of mercury per liter. Lab technicians typically wear special garments when measuring mercury levels, not to protect themselves – but to ensure accurate measurements, because even breathing on a sample can triple a reading! How do America’s coal-burning power plants enter into the picture?

The latest government, university and independent studies reveal that those power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. However, US forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tpy; Chinese power plants eject 400 tpy; 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 US air mass. Thus, US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air Americans breathe. Even eliminating every milligram of this mercury will do nothing about the other 99.5% in America’s atmosphere. And yet, in the face of these minuscule risks, EPA nevertheless demands that utility companies spend billions every year retrofitting coal-fired power plants that produce half of all US electricity, and 70-98% of electricity in twelve states. Its regulators simultaneously ignore the positive results of medical studies that clearly show its new restrictions are not needed and will not improve people’s health.

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for US women and children decreased steadily 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively “safe” level established by 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 US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury risk standards that are 2-3 times less restrictive than EPA’s. Under WHO and ATSDR guidelines, no American children are even remotely at risk from mercury.

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 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 US populations. Finally, EPA maintains that mercury deposition, its conversion to methylmercury, and MeHg accumulation in fish and humans is a simple process that can be controlled by curtailing emissions from US power plants. However, mercury emissions (from all sources) and raw mercury levels in fresh or ocean waters are only part of the story.

Complex, nonlinear interactions among at least 50 natural variables control the biological and chemical processes that govern elemental mercury conversion to methylmercury and MeHg accumulation in fish. Those variables, and selenium levels in fish tissue, are beyond anyone’s ability to control.

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, making coal-based electricity prices “skyrocket,” 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, rather than improve America’s health – especially for young children and women of child-bearing age. Not only will they raise heating, air conditioning and food costs; they will scare people away from 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.

ALWAYS the same dirty energy funding behind every fucking thing your right wing parrots spew.

Willie Soon

"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.

I have not 'spewed' anything. I asked a VERY logical question from the standpoint of a healthcare provider and person who knows something about the stats that are out there on cancer. As of yet, no one has answered it!

 

[Bfgrn]

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Get funding from big coal, become expert in Mercury?

In May 2011, an op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), co-authored by Willie Soon and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s Paul Driessen. Entitled “The Myth of Killer Mercury,” the piece attacked the EPA’s proposed rules for limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Soon’s WSJ byline stated: "Mr. Soon, a natural scientist at Harvard, is an expert on mercury and public health issues."

Greenpeace asked both Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) to verify this newfound area of expertise expressed by Dr Soon. Dr Charles Alcock, the Director of the CfA, stated in an email that Dr. Soon was employed an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), which is apparently housedt within the CfA, along with the the Harvard College Observatory. Dr. Alcock said in a letter "I cannot comment on Dr Soon’s expertise regarding mercury and public health issues."

Nonetheless, Willie Soon has no affiliation with Harvard University except sharing a building with Harvard students and staff on Harvard’s campus.

As the Wall St. Journal op-ed was re-posted across the web on right wing blogs and think tank websites, Dr. Soon’s byline mysteriously started to morph, turning into: "Willie Soon is a natural scientist who has studied mercury and public health issues for eight years." Yet there is no record of any such public health studying or publishing in peer reviewed journals in his most recent bio and CV, written six years ago.

Dr. Soon also appeared as a quasi-expert on mercury in 2005 in another Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "Eat More Fish," republished by the Heartland Institute.

 

[daveman]

Big government debt mortgages our children's future

Funny, considering you support big debt when it's a Democrat writing the bad checks.

Please link to a post of yours criticizing Obama's escalation of the debt.

 

[bripat9643]

ALWAYS the same dirty energy funding behind every fucking thing your right wing parrots spew.

Willie Soon

"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.

How did I know your response would be an ad hominem attack on the author? That's because you can't dispute what he says. It doesn't matter where his funding comes from if his arguments are correct.

You're been exposed as a shameless demagogue and an anti-capitalist propagandist.

Deal with it.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/11693...unding-going-of-the-green-movement-by-big-oil

Greenpeace attacks Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon & ignores massive funding going of the 'green' movement by 'big oil' Visit Site

Big Green: 'Env. Defense Fund Pres. Frederic Krupp, receives total compensation of $496,174...executives is World Wildlife Fund- US President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394...it's overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate' (Greenpeace's attack on Soon is here.)

 

[bripat9643]

The bottom line: You are unable to dispute what he says, so you attack him personally. That's typical of warmer loons.

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Get funding from big coal, become expert in Mercury?

In May 2011, an op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), co-authored by Willie Soon and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s Paul Driessen. Entitled “The Myth of Killer Mercury,” the piece attacked the EPA’s proposed rules for limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Soon’s WSJ byline stated: "Mr. Soon, a natural scientist at Harvard, is an expert on mercury and public health issues."

Greenpeace asked both Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) to verify this newfound area of expertise expressed by Dr Soon. Dr Charles Alcock, the Director of the CfA, stated in an email that Dr. Soon was employed an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), which is apparently housedt within the CfA, along with the the Harvard College Observatory. Dr. Alcock said in a letter "I cannot comment on Dr Soon’s expertise regarding mercury and public health issues."

Nonetheless, Willie Soon has no affiliation with Harvard University except sharing a building with Harvard students and staff on Harvard’s campus.

As the Wall St. Journal op-ed was re-posted across the web on right wing blogs and think tank websites, Dr. Soon’s byline mysteriously started to morph, turning into: "Willie Soon is a natural scientist who has studied mercury and public health issues for eight years." Yet there is no record of any such public health studying or publishing in peer reviewed journals in his most recent bio and CV, written six years ago.

Dr. Soon also appeared as a quasi-expert on mercury in 2005 in another Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "Eat More Fish," republished by the Heartland Institute.

 

[skookerasbil]

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Get funding from big coal, become expert in Mercury?

In May 2011, an op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), co-authored by Willie Soon and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s Paul Driessen. Entitled “The Myth of Killer Mercury,” the piece attacked the EPA’s proposed rules for limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Soon’s WSJ byline stated: "Mr. Soon, a natural scientist at Harvard, is an expert on mercury and public health issues."

Greenpeace asked both Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) to verify this newfound area of expertise expressed by Dr Soon. Dr Charles Alcock, the Director of the CfA, stated in an email that Dr. Soon was employed an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), which is apparently housedt within the CfA, along with the the Harvard College Observatory. Dr. Alcock said in a letter "I cannot comment on Dr Soon’s expertise regarding mercury and public health issues."

Nonetheless, Willie Soon has no affiliation with Harvard University except sharing a building with Harvard students and staff on Harvard’s campus.

As the Wall St. Journal op-ed was re-posted across the web on right wing blogs and think tank websites, Dr. Soon’s byline mysteriously started to morph, turning into: "Willie Soon is a natural scientist who has studied mercury and public health issues for eight years." Yet there is no record of any such public health studying or publishing in peer reviewed journals in his most recent bio and CV, written six years ago.

Dr. Soon also appeared as a quasi-expert on mercury in 2005 in another Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "Eat More Fish," republished by the Heartland Institute.

I love the naive assholes the most...........its dicks like this who think you can change public opinion by standing naked in the middle of Siberia and scream "FIRE!!!".






Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries | Newgeography.com


Nobody cares s0n..........











Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Not a single person is dying from pollution from coal fired power plants. If you think there is, then produce the hard evidence.

Show me one person who has died from smoking cigarettes. After all, have you ever seen anybody puff on one, then just fall over dead?

That is the kind of bullshit logic you are using.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Environmental Accounting for Pollution
in the United States Economy †

By Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus*

This study presents a framework to include environmental externalities into a system of national accounts. The paper estimates the air pollution damages for each industry in the United States. An integrated- assessment model quantifies the marginal damages of air pollution emissions for the US which are multiplied times the quantity of emissions by industry to compute gross damages. Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added. The largest industrial contributor to external costs is
coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added. (JEL E01, L94, Q53, Q56)

The correlation between smoking and cancer is well established. On the other hand, no such correlation between illness and coal fired power plants as ever been detected. Lead and mercury levels emitted by coal fired power plants are well below levels considered safe by medical research. The amount of mercury in the environment from natural sources far far exceeds anything emitted by coal fired power plants. Researchers sucking on the government tit who produce whatever results the bureaucrats want are a dime a dozen.

Furthermore, the paper you site does not even attempt to prove that anyone ever died from pollution emitted by coal fired power plants. it simply accepts the claims in some other paper on the subject as true and then estimates the costs of pollution based on that assumption.

Try reading the horseshit you site and maybe you wouldn't look like such a fool.

This jihad against coal fired power plants is based on junk science, as is most of what liberal turds like you believe about environment.

 

[bripat9643]

By this logic everyone who lives where the air is polluted should be getting cancer but they do not. Cancer isn't even the number 1 disease in the US; heart disease is numero uno.

So, how do you explain the number of people who live in a polluted environment now who do not get cancer? And how do you explain the number of people who live in a clean environment now who do get cancer?

There is no unusual incidence of any disease in people who live near coal fired power plants. The anti-coal loons have to rely on bogus statistical extrapolations the make the most ridiculous and extreme assumptions about the dangers of lead and mercury in the environment. Nothing emitted by a power plant has ever been demonstrated to be dangerous in the amounts that are emitted.

 

[Bfgrn]

By this logic everyone who lives where the air is polluted should be getting cancer but they do not. Cancer isn't even the number 1 disease in the US; heart disease is numero uno.

So, how do you explain the number of people who live in a polluted environment now who do not get cancer? And how do you explain the number of people who live in a clean environment now who do get cancer?

There is no unusual incidence of any disease in people who live near coal fired power plants. The anti-coal loons have to rely on bogus statistical extrapolations the make the most ridiculous and extreme assumptions about the dangers of lead and mercury in the environment. Nothing emitted by a power plant has ever been demonstrated to be dangerous in the amounts that are emitted.

Isn't it AMAZING that the 'science' paid for by big polluters ALWAYS says pollution will not harm you.

It is truly ironic you admit the correlation between smoking and cancer is well established. It wasn't always well established. The SAME 'scientists', think tanks, PR firms and echo chamber that fought that correlation funded by big tobacco are the SAME 'scientists', think tanks, PR firms and echo chamber that now say pollution will not harm you and global warming is not real.

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

* Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

* The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

* 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 the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk 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.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

The report identified control technologies that are currently in use in some plants that are readily available for installation at other plants to curb these toxic emissions. This modern pollution control technology will reduce other lethal pollutants as well, including particle pollution. The law sets the cleanup requirements based on actual performance facilities, but each power plant will select the specific pollution control strategies to reduce their emissions.

“Our report shows how critical this cleanup of acid gases, metals and other toxics is to public health,” Connor added. “We need EPA to step up and safeguard Americans from toxic air pollution.”

The report is a summary of a technical analysis of these emissions prepared for the Lung Association by Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. The Lung Association is also releasing the full analysis.

 

[bripat9643]

The EPA has paid the American Lung Association $20 million over the last 10 years. So according to your own theory that whoever pays gets whatever results they want, the report by the AMLA is just propaganda paid for by the EPA. Documents procured through the FOIA show that the AMLA has been in cahoots with the EPA for years.

You are hoisted on your own petard.

I won't bother wasting my time disputing the claims made by the AMLA since according to your own theory of truth the source of the funding is the only thing that matters.

Isn't it AMAZING that the 'science' paid for by big polluters ALWAYS says pollution will not harm you.

It is truly ironic you admit the correlation between smoking and cancer is well established. It wasn't always well established. The SAME 'scientists', think tanks, PR firms and echo chamber that fought that correlation funded by big tobacco are the SAME 'scientists', think tanks, PR firms and echo chamber that now say pollution will not harm you and global warming is not real.

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

* Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

* The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

* 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 the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk 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.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

The report identified control technologies that are currently in use in some plants that are readily available for installation at other plants to curb these toxic emissions. This modern pollution control technology will reduce other lethal pollutants as well, including particle pollution. The law sets the cleanup requirements based on actual performance facilities, but each power plant will select the specific pollution control strategies to reduce their emissions.

“Our report shows how critical this cleanup of acid gases, metals and other toxics is to public health,” Connor added. “We need EPA to step up and safeguard Americans from toxic air pollution.”

The report is a summary of a technical analysis of these emissions prepared for the Lung Association by Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. The Lung Association is also releasing the full analysis.

 

[gslack]

Jeff Schweitzer: Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer

That the Grand Old Party is hostile to environmental regulation is no grand revelation. But the most recent assault on the EPA is, even for Republicans and Tea Party enthusiasts, an unusually reckless and irresponsible attack on reasonable attempts to clean our air. We are talking coal ash. Nothing like taking in some lead, cadmium and mercury with each breath and every sip of water to brighten one's day. That is just the price we must pay to reduce government interference into our private affairs.

But coal is particularly nasty. Yes, the attraction to coal is powerful and obvious because the United States sits on a reserve of nearly 250 billion tons of coal, 112 billion of which are high-quality bituminous and anthracite coals; the remainder mainly being lower-energy and dirtier lignite. With such abundance the siren song of energy independence is difficult to resist. However, burning even the highest quality anthracite is dirty business. One 500 MW power plant generates about 3 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. Other toxic byproducts include fine-grain particulates, heavy metals like mercury, lead, chromium and nickel, trace elements such as arsenic and selenium, and various organics like dichloroethane, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and trichloroethylene. Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are common pollutants from coal, and are found at higher levels in anthracite than in bituminous coal. The known health consequences of this toxic brew of air and water pollution are many, and include nervous system problems in infants and children, asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, a suite of cardiovascular problems and kidney disease. The environmental impacts are well documented, and not pretty.

But all of those inconvenient truths are just part of a liberal conspiracy if you believe the GOP.

And one wonders just why anybody believes anything the GOP has to say anymore. Talk about some nasty agendas.

Sorry as soon as I saw HUFFPO I started laughing uncontrollably and couldn't read any further...

 

[BDBoop]

Jeff Schweitzer: Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer

That the Grand Old Party is hostile to environmental regulation is no grand revelation. But the most recent assault on the EPA is, even for Republicans and Tea Party enthusiasts, an unusually reckless and irresponsible attack on reasonable attempts to clean our air. We are talking coal ash. Nothing like taking in some lead, cadmium and mercury with each breath and every sip of water to brighten one's day. That is just the price we must pay to reduce government interference into our private affairs.

But coal is particularly nasty. Yes, the attraction to coal is powerful and obvious because the United States sits on a reserve of nearly 250 billion tons of coal, 112 billion of which are high-quality bituminous and anthracite coals; the remainder mainly being lower-energy and dirtier lignite. With such abundance the siren song of energy independence is difficult to resist. However, burning even the highest quality anthracite is dirty business. One 500 MW power plant generates about 3 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. Other toxic byproducts include fine-grain particulates, heavy metals like mercury, lead, chromium and nickel, trace elements such as arsenic and selenium, and various organics like dichloroethane, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and trichloroethylene. Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are common pollutants from coal, and are found at higher levels in anthracite than in bituminous coal. The known health consequences of this toxic brew of air and water pollution are many, and include nervous system problems in infants and children, asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, a suite of cardiovascular problems and kidney disease. The environmental impacts are well documented, and not pretty.

But all of those inconvenient truths are just part of a liberal conspiracy if you believe the GOP.

And one wonders just why anybody believes anything the GOP has to say anymore. Talk about some nasty agendas.

Sorry as soon as I saw HUFFPO I started laughing uncontrollably and couldn't read any further...

Gracious, you ARE easily amused. Too cute.

 

[gslack]

Jeff Schweitzer: Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer



And one wonders just why anybody believes anything the GOP has to say anymore. Talk about some nasty agendas.

Sorry as soon as I saw HUFFPO I started laughing uncontrollably and couldn't read any further...

Gracious, you ARE easily amused. Too cute.

Yes HUFFPO amuses me, just as Rush Limbaugh does. I consider them two sides of the same coin...

Posting that article on here is no different than someone citing Rush Limbaugh, I just find it hilarious that the same people who point out that Rush or Hannity or whoever are not to be taken seriously, will post from HUFFPO and get offended when its treated the same way...

An example of HUFFPO headlines on any given day is along the lines of; funny videos or pics depicting things ranging from everyday conservative bashing to stupid pet tricks, or whatever was on SNL that previous weekend... They throw this crap in there to fill in the spaces...

 

[Bfgrn]

The EPA has paid the American Lung Association $20 million over the last 10 years. So according to your own theory that whoever pays gets whatever results they want, the report by the AMLA is just propaganda paid for by the EPA. Documents procured through the FOIA show that the AMLA has been in cahoots with the EPA for years.

You are hoisted on your own petard.

I won't bother wasting my time disputing the claims made by the AMLA since according to your own theory of truth the source of the funding is the only thing that matters.

Isn't it AMAZING that the 'science' paid for by big polluters ALWAYS says pollution will not harm you.

It is truly ironic you admit the correlation between smoking and cancer is well established. It wasn't always well established. The SAME 'scientists', think tanks, PR firms and echo chamber that fought that correlation funded by big tobacco are the SAME 'scientists', think tanks, PR firms and echo chamber that now say pollution will not harm you and global warming is not real.

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

* Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

* The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

* 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 the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk 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.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

The report identified control technologies that are currently in use in some plants that are readily available for installation at other plants to curb these toxic emissions. This modern pollution control technology will reduce other lethal pollutants as well, including particle pollution. The law sets the cleanup requirements based on actual performance facilities, but each power plant will select the specific pollution control strategies to reduce their emissions.

“Our report shows how critical this cleanup of acid gases, metals and other toxics is to public health,” Connor added. “We need EPA to step up and safeguard Americans from toxic air pollution.”

The report is a summary of a technical analysis of these emissions prepared for the Lung Association by Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. The Lung Association is also releasing the full analysis.

Ignore whatever suits your ignorant dogma. If you actually look at the grants being given to the ALA, they are spent on remedial actions and public education required because of diseases exacerbated by pollution.

Instead, you choose to spew the paid for propaganda from JunkScience.com.

IRONY ALERT: YOU said the correlation between smoking and cancer is well established. Steven J. Milloy who runs JunkScience.com disagrees! Milloy blames smokers for their illness and death.

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.

Milloy's junkscience.com website was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Milloy also worked as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was established in 1993 by Philip Morris and its public relations firm "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states." A 1994 Philip Morris memo listed TASSC among its "Tools to Affect Legislative Decisions". According to its 1997 annual report, TASSC "sponsored" junkscience.com.

The New Republic reported that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to provide consulting services to Philip Morris through the end of 2005. In 2000 and 2001, for example, Milloy received a total of $180,000 in payments from Philip Morris for consulting services. A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." wiki


I keep hearing conservatives argue they are for protecting our environment, just like liberals. Yet, turd brains like you deny pollution, know toxins and carcinogens are a hazard to human health.

Ironic, the Soviet Union is a environmental waste land and a nuclear contamination time bomb that threatens the world. Russia had their Marxists, and we have our Marketists. Two peas in a pod who will take us to the SAME ends.

Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.