Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would expect that every fish within the US would test positive for Mercury now or 1000 years ago. Mercury emissions are both natural and man made, by EPA estimates split about 1/3 natural and 1/3 man made. The other 1/3 is mercury that was previously emitted and remitted. Understand these are estimates and the exact numbers are hard to pin point. If my understanding is correct the single greatest source of mercury is the naturally occurring emissions from the oceans. The greatest man made source is coal plants but within the US coal plants account for about 1% of the global pool. Total man made US emissions only account for 3% of the global pool....
It's a global problem, another EPA estimate that only 1/3 of the emissions produced in the US are actually deposited in the US. I'd venture to guess man made contamination in the US is more likely to be produced in China than here.
.
Beautifully done but instantly rejected thanks to a pile of dead fish.
Philip I'm basing what I said on what the EPA says, those quotes are from the EPA. It's not like I'm making it up or using a questionable source. If you have a beef with their data I'd suggest contacting them. Certainly industry and burning of coal produces mercury and would cause elevated levels, the point is their is more too it that man made emissions and larger sources of man made mercury emissions are not from within the US borders. Our strict environmental regulations of industry and coal fired plants regarding mercury is beneficial in a global context and not necessarily the US itself.
I'm not saying mercury regulations are a bad thing, certainly where you have a substance that is proven to be bad such as mercury you should do whatever is necessary to control it but if you want to address this issue it has to be done globally, specifically the much larger amounts being produced from China and India. If you removed all sources of man made mercury produced from coal plants within the US borders you are only removing 1% of the global pool. If you removed all sources within the US you have now removed 3%. In the global context you wouldn't accomplish much at all and new emissions from other sources outside the US would quickly overtake any ground gained.
Here's probably the most important piece of information in what I quoted before:
Quote:
EPA has estimated that about one third of U.S. emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle.
Following along with that I don't think it's too hard to make the leap that Mercury contamination within the US has sources outside the US?
FYI those EPA figures are from about 2000, mercury is already tightly controlled within the US and will continue to be more tightly controlled but our regulation is irrelevant if China, India and others do not follow along the same path. Of course you'll never eliminate all of it as you have naturally occurring emissions.
The single greatest source that remains is coal fired plants however those will be coming under much tighter regulation shortly:
While on the topic one argument those advocating the control of CO2 emissions make is "We should lead the way and others will follow". See how well that has worked for mercury?
Beautifully done but instantly rejected thanks to a pile of dead fish.
Have you viewed the video? Obviously not because If you're concerned about the pile of dead fish here's a suggestion on what you can do to help prevent it. Don't eat as every mouthful of food you take has contributed to that pile of dead fish. The video describes the depletion of Oxygen because of nutrients being added to the water, it has absolutely nothing to do with Mercury. The primary cause of this is nitrogen from farming and includes both crops and livestock.
Last edited by thecoalman; 09-06-2009 at 09:45 AM..
I was just joking with you -- calling you a retard.
Thought it was a little funny. Maybe not.
I used to play with it, too. We would heat and drive the oxygen off from the ore without even using vents, hoods, etc. back in Chemistry class -- and then walk around playing with the stuff all day.
Not saying that does not make the stuff every bit as harmful as the later studies have found. We just lacked that knowledge and hence had poor judgment. You may also know that some folks have looked at the rise of Hg in vaccines as a causal agent of Autism.
But like you, we do not eat fish, either. Our kids think the fishing pole (with fish treats tied on the string) exists to feed fish -- about like throwing old bread out for the ducks.
It WAS funny!!! LMAO!
I haven't gone fishing in a long time. As an adult I would get all my gear together (which would include a generous supply of beer and a good book or two) head out to the fishing hole, kick back with a beer and a book, and cast a line with no hook or bait, just a sinker.
Have you viewed the video? Obviously not because If you're concerned about the pile of dead fish here's a suggestion on what you can do to help prevent it. Don't eat as every mouthful of food you take has contributed to that pile of dead fish. The video describes the depletion of Oxygen because of nutrients being added to the water, it has absolutely nothing to do with Mercury. The primary cause of this is nitrogen from farming and includes both crops and livestock.
I'm suppsed to be able to follow more than one subject in a single tread? I'm also supossed to read the posts and view some vidoe? Jeez, I grageeated hi skul and don't need no more edjukatin'.
AP Impact: "Gov't Stands by as Mercury Taints Water"
AP IMPACT: Gov't stands by as mercury taints water - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_us/us_abandoned_mercury_mines - broken link)
This is actually an update to the subject mentioned at the outset. However, this is not so much about emmissions as it is murcury leaching out from more than 550 old Mercury Mines which were closed decades ago in California.
The article mentioned one site in which the government spent over $40 million and nothing really changed. The problem here is why did'nt the government make the industry responsible for clean up rather than spending tax payer dollar$$$ on this ???
In the end, I don't have any more answers on this mess or fixing it than anybody else. I would'nt know where to begin. Perhaps some biological answer not yet found. I know that at the chernobyl site, it was found that one area had a variety of sunflowers on the formerly contaminated ground which had a species of specific bacteria on it's roots (makes sense since they are ruderals) which made the radioactive material inert. Basically many species of mycorrhizal fungi can and do mine inorganic soil for trace elements and chew them up and spit them out to the plant in a structural form that the plant can use. Who knows what they may find. There are millions of species of beneficial fungus and bacteria and finding that particular one variety is like finding a specific key to fit the lock, just going to take time. Like the article quoted the government EPA official, Danial Meer:
"It took a hundred years to occur," said the EPA's Meer. "And it may take a hundred years or more to solve."
But again, on this issue of Mercury I'm at a loss of what they can really do if anything.
This is actually an update to the subject mentioned at the outset. However, this is not so much about emmissions as it is murcury leaching out from more than 550 old Mercury Mines which were closed decades ago in California.
The article mentioned one site in which the government spent over $40 million and nothing really changed. The problem here is why did'nt the government make the industry responsible for clean up rather than spending tax payer dollar$$$ on this ???
It's probably the same situation they have here in Pennsylvania. No one left to hold accountable. The thing to understand about the situation here is there has been more tons of coal taken from PA mines than any other state and it still has the record for most tons mined in a year set in 1918, that was when the mining industry started a decline most notably the anthracite mining industry as it's a much harder coal to mine than soft coal. All those companies have long since disappeared so there is no one to give the bill too.
Having said that for every ton of coal that is mined now they need to set aside X amount of money for reclamation of the site they are mining so you don't end up with more sites. More importantly there is also a tax applied to every ton that goes towards reclamation of abandoned mines.
That is why you should not move to make mandatory laws banning incandescents... the CFLs are LOADED with mercury and play a huge role... LEDs are probably a lot safer but is pretty toxic to make as well (but no mercury)... we need to strive to find a solution... I tell pregnant ladies to not consume mercury content (basically any seafood)... I hate CFLs cause they are loaded with mercury... and they never last as long as they are "supposed" to... strange enough, they usually last as long as my incandescents... when LED bulbs get cheaper... we should look to try to ban CFLs...
the CFLs are LOADED with mercury and play a huge role...
I believe the argument there is that the electric being saved offsets the amount used within the CFL and whereas the mercury is going directly into the atmosphere such as from a coal burning plant the CFL (assuming it doesn't get broke beforehand) can safely be contained in a landfill or other containment facility or even recovered and recycled. I guess the bottom line is it depends on how many get broken.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
