Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2012, 04:41 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,783,714 times
Reputation: 17862

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
That is just not true at all. It doesn't work that way. If it did, the concentrations we see in fly ash and in air emissions and in groundwater around power plants would be the same as background levels. And that just ain't the case.

Is the EPA is wrong? Just to clarify new emissions are equally divided between humans and nature. Why they list remitted mercury just for human caused ones I don't know and something I've been meaning to research. In any event I'm not going to argue the point, it's either half or 1/3 depending on how you want to look at it.

Quote:
Natural sources of mercury—such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean—have been estimated to contribute about a third of current worldwide mercury air emissions, whereas anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions account for the remaining two-thirds. These estimates are highly uncertain. Land, water, and other surfaces can repeatedly re-emit mercury into the atmosphere after its initial release into the environment. Much of the mercury circulating through today's environment is mercury that was released years ago. The pie chart below shows that anthropogenic emissions are roughly split between these re-emitted emissions from previous human activity, and direct emissions from current human activity.

Quote:
So what? Are you going to tell your granchildren that you didn't want anything done about the toxic emissions of mercury that are poisoning them ......
This would be out of context when you don't include my next sentence that addresses the health benefits. If the EPA documentation is to believed we could raise the IQ's of children 2/1000 of a point by not "poisoning them" as you have put it which of course is unmeasurable under any circumstances. This is practical to you?



Quote:
If you want to have a rational discussion with me (I'm a geologist who has worked as an environmental consultant for 22 years),
Well Mr. Geologist teach us, the only thing I've seen you post is irrational opinions without any citations to the references. Your last post included a Google search which is far too vague and reference to a study on a method to determine the amount of mercury in coal. The point is what? I have to question if you have even read the study you are linking too yourself.


Quote:
Experimental Discussion
The goal of this study was to evaluate a novel approach for the
determination of total mercury in coal and coal combustion
products and in particular, to assess its capabilities with aqueous
calibration standards, when measuring standard reference materials
(SRMs).

Last edited by thecoalman; 01-08-2012 at 04:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2012, 08:10 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,200,372 times
Reputation: 3321
The point, Mr. Coalman (interesting that you would give yourself that name and then defend coal-fired power plant emissions), is that natural emissions are uncontrollable while man-made emissions certainly ARE. What's more, man-made emissions, which according to your source, constitutes 2/3rds of the total emissions, are of much greater concern because they are occurring where people live, work, play, grow food, etc. For instance, I live within the plume fallout zone of three coal-fired power plants. So do the other 1,000,000 people who live in this part of the Ohio valley. Mercury builds up in the environment over time, and so with every year that it goes unregulated in fly ash and emissions, the levels in soil and water increase.

And it isn't just mercury that is an issue. Particulate pollution is causing higher and higher incidences of asthma and other respiratory ailments. I am one of those.

Here is a classic example of what can happen when mercury contamination goes unregulated in the environment:

The Poisoning of Minamata

Do you find the situation below acceptable? If you do, I suggest you buy one of the unsellable homes across the street from this fly ash dump and live there:



The regs are going to be implimented. Get ready for it. Get used to it.

This is a warning to us all:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ea...worse_999.html

Last edited by orogenicman; 01-08-2012 at 08:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 12:18 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,783,714 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
The point, Mr. Coalman (interesting that you would give yourself that name and then defend coal-fired power plant emissions),
My name is derived from small coal delivery business that was originally owned by Great Grandfather that I no longer own, this was unrelated to coal plants and currently I have a very small financial interest in coal through my forum. Regulations driving up the costs of electric or other forms of heat would actually benefit me directly.

Quote:
are of much greater concern because they are occurring where people live, work, play, grow food, etc.
The greatest exposure to mercury comes from fish. And again according to the EPA most of the emissions from US sources are deposited outside of the contiguous US and to quote them:

Quote:
"Those analyses conclude that regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters."
---------


Quote:
And it isn't just mercury that is an issue. Particulate pollution is causing higher and higher incidences of asthma and other respiratory ailments. I am one of those.
Since the 80's particulate emissions have been reduced and within that same time frame we have seen an increase in asthma cases. Care to explain how the increase in asthma is related to coal buring?

I've researched this and most studies suggest the reason for this increase is uncertain however I'll offer my own opinion. Houses particularly newer ones are much more efficient at trapping heat, we have insulation, Tyvek, triple pane windows etc. This also traps indoor air pollution, you can add into the equation kids and adults spending so much more time indoors.

Quote:
Here is a classic example of what can happen when mercury contamination goes unregulated in the environment:
This is extreme example where a Japanese company was dumping large quantities of mercury into a waterway where the local population was getting a lot of fish from. It's unacceptable and hardly comparable to the current discussion, this would obviously be something that is and should remain against the law here in the US.



Quote:
Do you find the situation below acceptable? If you do, I suggest you buy one of the unsellable homes across the street from this fly ash dump and live there:
I wouldn't buy a house there for the same reason I wouldn't buy a house next to an airport, in the slum, a flood plane, etc. They are all undesirable places to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 02:16 PM
 
23,519 posts, read 69,916,722 times
Reputation: 48893
Coalman, this is one area where I'm not trusting that the data is all accurate or complete. The reason for my concern is the ultra-high levels of mercury in the Everglades.
SOFIA - Metadata - Mercury Studies in the Florida Everglades

I have not yet seen any definitive maps, but I am very aware that there were coal-fired power generating plants along the coasts, the normal flow of air takes the air from the coasts over the Everglades, where it heats, rises, and falls in tremendous thunderstorms, effectively concentrating much of the pollutants and depositing them.

I am also suspect that the MAJOR coal fired generating station in Ft. Myers was decommissioned almost immediately after the high mercury levels were discovered, and replaced with an equally large natural gas fired plant.

There are just too many coincidences for me to pass this off. I keep reading, but am seeing a variety of answers that don't seem to make a whole lot of sense, like the trade winds causing a lot of the mercury to have been imported from around the world. Those trade winds come off the Sahara, I used to have to get the sand out of the pool. The Sahara doesn't seem like a place that would have high mercury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 11:41 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,783,714 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Coalman, this is one area where I'm not trusting that the data is all accurate or complete. The reason for my concern is the ultra-high levels of mercury in the Everglades.
SOFIA - Metadata - Mercury Studies in the Florida Everglades
I'd agree Harry but if you read some of these studies most of the uncertainty revolves around the natural world. For example in the study you are citing they note the natural environment is conducive to the production of methylmercury. As far as the human caused sources they docite other possible sources than coal plants.

Quote:
The severe mercury problem in the Everglades is likely the result of naturally occurring conditions that make the ecosystem prone to mercury methylation and bioaccumulation, and the exacerbating effects of many disturbances caused by a large, nearby human population. Most wetland systems, like the Everglades, have the necessary ingredients that tend to promote elevated levels of CH3Hg+ in organisms, such as ample DOC, organic substrate (peat), and low to neutral pH. In addition, relatively high sulfate levels and a subtropical climate in the Everglades region provide optimal conditions for sulfate-reducing bacteria to methylate mercury. The human effect on the mercury problem in the Everglades centers on three issues: (1) Hg-containing emissions from incinerators and power generating utilities; (2) increased soil-mercury mobilization promoted by drainage and soil disturbance in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA);(3) hydrologic changes resulting from the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project and (4) other chemical additions to the Everglades, such as sulfate from acid rain or runoff from agricultrual areas, that may stimulate mercury methylation.
The first question I have is are these increased levels due to man or have they existed before? Combination of both? Certainly if you have an environment that is more likely to to produce methylmercury then the natural levels must of been high to begin with.

Quote:
I am also suspect that the MAJOR coal fired generating station in Ft. Myers was decommissioned almost immediately after the high mercury levels were discovered, and replaced with an equally large natural gas fired plant.
In this sue happy age can you blame them? Seems it would be lawyers wet dream.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 11:52 PM
 
23,519 posts, read 69,916,722 times
Reputation: 48893
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I'd agree Harry but if you read some of these studies most of the uncertainty revolves around the natural world. For example in the study you are citing they note the natural environment is conducive to the production of methylmercury. As far as the human caused sources they docite other possible sources than coal plants.

The first question I have is are these increased levels due to man or have they existed before? Combination of both? Certainly if you have an environment that is more likely to to produce methylmercury then the natural levels must of been high to begin with.

In this sue happy age can you blame them? Seems it would be lawyers wet dream.
The startle response I initially had was that suddenly, and without previous warning, the scientists were saying "Whoaaa! This is incredible!" and immediately started telling people to not eat the fish. Florida is a sport fisherman paradise, so that was an eye-opener.

Yes, I saw the "other sources" routine. I just am not sure how much credence to give it, which is why I'm saying that the data is not all in to my satisfaction. I can't say positively that the coal fired plants were the cause, but if there was ever a smoking gun, this is it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 12:53 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,783,714 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
The startle response I initially had was that suddenly, and without previous warning, the scientists were saying "Whoaaa! This is incredible!"
As science advances scientists tend to say that a lot. It's just like the arctic ice melt, we only have satellite data going back to late 70's...... Whoa check this out!. Are we seeing something new or has our abilities to discover new things just lead us to something not seen before. There is no satellite data to compare prior to that and the observed data is no where as comprehensive or accurate.


Having said that as rational person I would suggest local variables should be considered in environmental policy instead of the one size fits all regualtions. If you have a natural environment that can greatly exacerbate the effects of man that should be considered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 11:07 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,200,372 times
Reputation: 3321
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
My name is derived from small coal delivery business that was originally owned by Great Grandfather that I no longer own, this was unrelated to coal plants and currently I have a very small financial interest in coal through my forum. Regulations driving up the costs of electric or other forms of heat would actually benefit me directly.
Fair enough.

Quote:
The greatest exposure to mercury comes from fish. And again according to the EPA most of the emissions from US sources are deposited outside of the contiguous US and to quote them:
I'd like to see a link to the original source of your quote. Having said that, no one denies that most of our exposure to mercury comes from fish. However, there are hotspots at many localities throughout the country, and most of those originate from industrial and power plant emissions and fly ash improperly landfilled and covered. In addition, the law does specifically relate to the fact that our pollution migrates not only outside of the region where it originated, but outside of our national boundaries. Just because our pollution gets blown into Canada or into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for it or that it has no impact.

Quote:
Since the 80's particulate emissions have been reduced and within that same time frame we have seen an increase in asthma cases. Care to explain how the increase in asthma is related to coal buring?
I have seen studies that show local increases in asthma cases as a result of power plant emissions. I haven't been able to find the links I had to those, but will post them when I do. I do recall that at least one study inferred that those emissions exacerbate the condition for those (such as myself) who already have it.

Quote:
I've researched this and most studies suggest the reason for this increase is uncertain however I'll offer my own opinion. Houses particularly newer ones are much more efficient at trapping heat, we have insulation, Tyvek, triple pane windows etc. This also traps indoor air pollution, you can add into the equation kids and adults spending so much more time indoors.
I live in an apartment building that is at least 45 years old, ans is poorly insulated, with windows that leak like a sieve. So that hypothesis doesn't work for me, at least.

Quote:
This is extreme example where a Japanese company was dumping large quantities of mercury into a waterway where the local population was getting a lot of fish from. It's unacceptable and hardly comparable to the current discussion, this would obviously be something that is and should remain against the law here in the US.
Yes it is illegal here to pollute our air and waterways. Unfortunately the law doesn't always prevent people from doing it anyway. For instance, it has long been illegal to release gasoline and diesel fuel into the environment (soil and ground water). But it wasn't until 1988 when the EPA required upgrades on all petroleum underground storage tanks that the petroleum industry actually did anything about the millions of point source polluters in their possession all across the United States. The fact is that polluters will do nothing unless they are forced to do so by regulation or threat or actual law suits.



Quote:
I wouldn't buy a house there for the same reason I wouldn't buy a house next to an airport, in the slum, a flood plane, etc. They are all undesirable places to live.
The houses in the neighborhood where that photo of the fly ash was located were there long before the fly ash landfill was constructed. In fact, that landfill was constructed within the last 15 years. The people who had already invested their lives in their homes there didn't have a say in the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,068 posts, read 10,097,983 times
Reputation: 1651
As an aside, we can't even tell if the fish we buy is actually the fish we think we are buying.

-----------------

Also, millions of years ago, mercury completely destroyed every last living animal in the oceans... Something to think about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,039,113 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
The Chinese city of Xi’an has some of the worst air quality in the world. Yet its air is significantly safer than the air in U.S. cities, according to a new study.
That parallels the "disappeared" UN study.

The rate of childhood asthma in the US is significantly higher than the rate of asthma and other respiratory problems in the most heavily polluted cities of the world.

How is that possible? You have to look at the differences between an American child and a child born outside of the US.

American children are raised on wall-to-wall carpet made of synthetic fibers from oil.

Children Europe, Asia, South America and Africa do not have that luxury. If there is carpeting in the home, it is not wall-to-wall, and it is made of natural plant or animal fibers, not synthetic oil-based fibers.

American children are also raised on central heat/air, while children in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa are not. It has been suggested that living in quasi-sterile environment results in asthma and other respiratory diseases, much in the same way the quasi-sterile environment in a hospital results in patients dying of pneumonia in hospital

The results of that study conform to everything we already know (but refuse to acknowledge).

Not surprised...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top