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.
*chuckle* the problem is you don't read or understand half of the evidence you post. No one is evading anything, sometimes we just have to wait for you to catch up. The problem with your Watts link is that they don't differentiate between the different forms of mercury, which if you read through the comments section the author acknowledgdes. You really need to read the comments and not just glance at articles and post them. But no big deal since you are overall correct in your argument of this new law being stupid. As to the whole mercury and EPA debate: the current law is sufficient enough to safeguard against mercury's toxicity.
The OP's picture was taken from this Atlanta Wildfire article.
Below is a picture of smog in Texas.
To eliminate a major source of air pollution (perhaps a bigger one than coal emmissions) perhaps we better cut down and mulch all the trees. That should keep some of the clean air nazis happy.
Let's see, that's 3 pages before someone started copying a bunch of graphs from a climate change denier blog and 5 pages before someone trotted out the word "nazi".
I rate this post a "B-". You can do better, people.
You need to learn about the methylation process, in order to understand why your data is irrelevant.
.
Except by EPA estimates only about 1/3 of the mercury from coal fired plants is deposited inside the US. It enters the atmosphere and is carried away thousands of miles. It's global issue and my point of course is that the US coal plants contribute very little.
Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
EPA has conducted extensive analyses on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and subsequent regional patterns of deposition to U.S. waters. 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. That small contribution will be significantly reduced after EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule are implemented.
Cost/benefit analysis from the EPA of the new regs, note that the monetary benefits listed in this study are indirect because of reduction in PM which is already regulated by the EPA. I'll also note their estimates are very questionable which is also noted by the EPA because. They used a linear dose assessment which is bit of stretch. Here's one benefit they list and probably the most important one since the primary issue with mercury is neurological, IQ's are expected to rise 2/1000 of a point which of course is unmeasurable using any IQ test.
Changes in mercury deposition rates associated with reductions in power plant
mercury emissions are based on regional deposition modeling results from the EPA's
analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative. In its analysis, the EPA simulated current mercury
deposition rates and the changes in these rates that would result if power plants
reduced their mercury emissions from the current rate of 49 tons per year to either 26 or
15 tons per year. We used these predictions to estimate changes in deposition rates for
the freshwater regions, the Atlantic Coastal Region, and the Gulf of Mexico. Estimated
decreases range from approximately 1% to 10%. The change in deposition rates to the
All Other Waters region is assumed to be proportional to the change in total global
emissions that would result from U.S. power plant emissions reductions, which is less
than 1%.
The reason the decrease is so minuscule is because there is so many sources outside the US, primarily China. You could remove all mercury emissions in the US and as a practical matter you'll have accomplished nothing. Matter of fact you could increase emissions as more manufacturing jobs move overseas as the cost for power here increases.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-03-2012 at 05:56 PM..
*****************************
Yeah, let's not worry about this kind of stuff. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like the world is runnng out of people to kill with toxins.
I used to live in beautiful Atlanta, Georgia. (See pic below.) There were actually days there where they said on the news, "It would be better if you didn't go outside today."
Pffftt. Who believes that enviromental blah blah blah crap anyways. I'm going for a run. PEACE, Y'all!
I used to live in ATL too, well one of the suburbs...Lawrenceville.
I would have loved to do my part to prevent pollution and used public transportation, but their transit service, MARTA, didn't go to where I lived. It was a 30 - 45 minute drive to the nearest station, that doesn't really help.
It was well known that most of the people working downtown that could have used MARTA, were in Gwinnett and Cobb counties, but MARTA didn't go there!!
What do you want to strive for? The Chinese seem to be more like it. No?
So it is extremes for you? Either we handicap our economy or we disregard everything entirely?
You don't see the problem with EPA's target of coal production considering the insignificant level of contribution the US makes and the fact that there is no valid evidence of the severity of the claims they make concerning people and the environments health concerning it?
Oh, I am sorry... I am discussing this rationally, you were looking to pigeon hole the discussion into your neat little world view. Carry on.
indeed it was, you didn't understand or address a single point i made.
Actually, I responded to each comment you had. The only one I did not provide a "source" for was the comment concerning this putting pressure on our economic system. As I said, that one is fairly reasonable to speculate at. Regulation requires compliance to which often results in retrofits of the plants and processes that increase costs to the consumer. If a plant closes because it can not afford to meet standards of the regulation, then well, this becomes a problem with supply to the system.
You are welcome to disagree with such and explain how this will not drive up costs and create hardship on the industry and the consumers they supply though.
As for the rest, I provided links concerning the specifics of your objection.
You responded with only a quote of my "/shrug" disregarded my responses and then tried to focus on a character discredit using a point that is irrelevant to the points I was making. I would say your response is that of someone deviously attempting to avoid responding to the lacking in their argument, but you go ahead and pat yourself on the back smugly, I am sure others who share your approach to discussions will be cheering you one.
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.
