If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
coal power plant

Are Mercury Rules a Toxic Double Standard?

coal power plantNew EPA rules aimed at curbing mercury emissions, which mainly affect coal-fired electrical generating plants, are based on bad science, write Willis Eschenbach and Jane M. Orient, MD, in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Medical sources of mercury are likely far more important, but are not subject to comparable scrutiny, the article says.

Most atmospheric mercury comes from natural sources, especially the oceans, they write. US power plants were responsible for about 64.1 metric tons of mercury in 2008, or 1 percent of the total 7,500 metric tons of all mercury emissions. The EPA’s assertion that its mercury rule will save 11,000 lives every year is “absurd,” the authors write.

They conclude that the EPA’s “regulatory policies with respect to coal-fired power plants and other industries, which impose enormous costs, are based on questionable methods extrapolated to absurd conclusions.”

Photo Credit: coal power plant via Shutterstock

 

 

Financing Environmental Resiliency and a Low-Carbon Future with Green Bonds
Sponsored By: NSF International

  
Four Key Questions to Ask Before Your Next Energy Purchase
Sponsored By: EnerNOC, Inc.

  
Operationalizing EHS Management: Bridge the Gap from Strategy to Execution
Sponsored By: LNS Research

  
Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  

3 thoughts on “Are Mercury Rules a Toxic Double Standard?

  1. A very curious piece of advocacy….not research. The authors main assertion is that the primary source of mercury is from the oceans, not anthropogenic. Yet, how does the ocean accumulate all this mercury? Volcanoes, they claim. And where do they get that bit of science? Why from a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal!

    It might be time for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons to review their submissions with a sharper eye.

    Please.

  2. And it might also be time for the Environmental Leader to review their stories with a similar improved inspection.
    As opposed to re-disseminating everything without first stopping to ask themselves whether or not the item in question is even remotely believable…

Leave a Comment