Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
EPA in a hot spot over mercury pollution (White House Coverup)
Unused report had much higher estimate of benefits to curbs
Researchers sample fish in the Everglades to test them for mercury levels. An EPA report found a mercury "hot spot" in the Southeast.
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:40 a.m. ET April 29, 2
WASHINGTON - An internal Environmental Protection Agency report estimates the Southeast alone could reap up to $2 billion a year in benefits from reducing mercury pollution — 40 times more than the $50 million in benefits the agency projected publicly for the entire nation.
advertisement
Critics said the report shows the Bush administration sought to minimize the benefits of reducing mercury pollution in order to justify not requiring power plant owners to buy the most effective technology for lowering mercury emissions.
“EPA has a track record of withholding information that doesn’t support their agenda, and this is the latest example,” said Felice Stadler, a National Wildlife Federation policy specialist.
A separate EPA-commissioned study released in February by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated there could be $5 billion a year in public health benefits from a 62.5 percent cut in the mercury released by power plants. That study too was excluded from consideration in the new rule EPA released in March.
The report on Southeast benefits, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, looked at reducing mercury concentrations in marine fish and shellfish.
It did not estimate the cost of achieving this reduction but said reducing national mercury emissions by 30 percent to 100 percent would produce Southeast benefits of between $600 million to more than $2 billion.
Southeast 'hot spot'
This report also found a mercury “hot spot” — deposits of the toxic metal stretching across 50,000 square miles in the South Atlantic, from North Carolina to South Florida.
The existence of such a large mercury concentration raises questions about public assertions by EPA officials that their new rule would prevent such hot spots.
Announcing the new regulations in March, EPA’s air quality chief, Jeffrey Holmstead, said, “We don’t think there will be any hot spots. We’re quite confident of that.”
The report said the mercury hot spot off the Atlantic coast was produced by “significant rainfall in the offshore area that washes out large amounts of mercury emitted by power plants and other sources.” It said U.S. pollution is responsible for 37 percent to 68 percent of the mercury deposits there.
Jason Burnett, a policy aide to Holmstead, said Thursday his agency disagrees with that conclusion.
“The question is how much of that mercury comes from U.S. power plants, and that’s the quantification that we don’t believe is sufficiently understood to use in a rule-making context,” he said.
Mercury concentrations accumulate in fish and go up the food chain, posing the greatest risk of nerve damage to pregnant women, women of childbearing ages and young children. EPA officials also had said mercury-contaminated fish from abroad posed the biggest threat.
Stadler said the unreleased EPA report “paints a different picture — that in certain parts of the country you have a lot of Americans eating fish caught locally.”
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I am guessing that when Jon cut and paste he left it off. Although, if that's the best that you can do in crtizing this news story, there must be something to it then.
If you read into the article, you'll see that the EPA disagrees with it---
Quote:
The report said the mercury hot spot off the Atlantic coast was produced by “significant rainfall in the offshore area that washes out large amounts of mercury emitted by power plants and other sources.” It said U.S. pollution is responsible for 37 percent to 68 percent of the mercury deposits there.
Jason Burnett, a policy aide to Holmstead, said Thursday his agency disagrees with that conclusion.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
If you read into the article, you'll see that the EPA disagrees with it---
Of course they disagree - because it contradicts what they are telling the American Public.
40year- The Bush Administration has a 5 year record of ALWAYS using the best case scenario (the one that favors polluters, etc) on EVERY report they do, and supressing studies that contradict the Administration position.
You would think at some point you would realize the snow job the Bush EPA is doing, and learn to NOT trust them, instead of blindly accepting their findings.
Dback, those people in the EPA were in there before Bush got to be president. Same for the CIA, FBI, etc. Look at what the CIA has tried to do to this adminstration.
As with anything, there are always two sides to any issue. Apparantely you agree with the writer that this is a conspiricy by the Bush Adminstration and I disagree. In this country, no one man has the power you Dems like to ascribe to the current president. There are too many people involved for any kind of a real conspiricy to work.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Dback, those people in the EPA were in there before Bush got to be president. Same for the CIA, FBI, etc. Look at what the CIA has tried to do to this adminstration.
As with anything, there are always two sides to any issue. Apparantely you agree with the writer that this is a conspiricy by the Bush Adminstration and I disagree. In this country, no one man has the power you Dems like to ascribe to the current president. There are too many people involved for any kind of a real conspiricy to work.
40year - the professionals are conducting studies, and coming to conclusions - the BUSH appointees are rejecting them, editing data to suit their political purposes, and hiding reports that contradict the administration stand. Yes, there can be multiple sides to an issue - but the Administration is continually picking studies on the extreme edge of the data spectrum to support their views.
Linear Mode
