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.
What part of 'mercury is a known hazardous/toxic/carcenogenic substance regulated under the clean air act, RCRA and CERCLA, and OSHA regulations' do you not understand?
I'm not going to look it up but carbon dioxide another emission from coal plants is going to be regulated as a hazardous material at least under OSHA regulations because of the use of carbon dioxide as a fire suppressant. It can lead to unconsciousness in concentrations around 14% and is eventually fatal if you're not removed from such an environment. For the same reason mercury exposure will be regualted because the possibility of exposure is high. How either of these are regulated in the work environment is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm going to ask again what are the specific benefits or mercury reduction? We've established through the EPA documentation that they expect IQ's to go up 1/2000 of point. Is that it?
I'm not going to look it up but carbon dioxide another emission from coal plants is going to be regulated as a hazardous material at least under OSHA regulations because of the use of carbon dioxide as a fire suppressant. It can lead to unconsciousness in concentrations around 14% and is eventually fatal if you're not removed from such an environment. For the same reason mercury exposure will be regualted because the possibility of exposure is high. How either of these are regulated in the work environment is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm going to ask again what are the specific benefits or mercury reduction? We've established through the EPA documentation that they expect IQ's to go up 1/2000 of point. Is that it?
If you are going to dishonestly continue to ignore the fact that mercury and its related compounds, and the other compounds regulated under the same regulations in question, are TOXIC compounds that have health effects OTHER than the friggin IQ issue you seem fixated on (as I've pointed out in several posts using cited references, including the EPA's final rule document), then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
If you are going to dishonestly continue to ignore the fact that mercury and its related compounds, and the other compounds regulated under the same regulations in question, are TOXIC compounds
The question is not whether they are toxic, as I've already pointed out nearly anything can be toxic given a certain quantity. I've even provided two examples where a common element and a common compound can be toxic. The point of course is we don't regulate carbon dioxide emissions as they pertain to it's toxic effects because we would have to burn coal for about 40,000 years to achieve a level of toxicity that will begin to have a direct effect on humans.
The question is how the toxicity of the mercury emission from US coal plants that account for 1% of the global pool effects the US population or even the worldwide population, I'll ask again specifically what benefits are there to these regulations that justify the expense of implementing them?
The question is not whether they are toxic, as I've already pointed out nearly anything can be toxic given a certain quantity.
Ignoring basic chemistry are we?
Methyl-mercury, the type most likely to form from the mercury given off and then deposited by the burning of coal, is highly toxic in even very low dosages.
Ignoring the FACT that methylmercury is the most common mercury product of coal fired electrical generation is bad science indeed.
Quote:
I've even provided two examples where a common element and a common compound can be toxic. The point of course is we don't regulate carbon dioxide emissions as they pertain to it's toxic effects because we would have to burn coal for about 40,000 years to achieve a level of toxicity that will begin to have a direct effect on humans.
Which is why the FACT that methylmercury is HIGHLY TOXIC is relevant here.
Quote:
The question is how the toxicity of the mercury emission from US coal plants that account for 1% of the global pool effects the US population or even the worldwide population, I'll ask again specifically what benefits are there to these regulations that justify the expense of implementing them?
Again IGNORING. Even in your own "source" they go on to explain how methylmercury is much more toxic than other mercury forms. So while coal firing may only account for 1% of ALL types of mercury globally it accounts for a significantly LARGER portion of the methylmercury found in the areas local to the coal firing.
Biomagnification means that top predators in those areas (many of which are eaten by humans) can have 1,000,000 times the amount of methylmercury.
And maybe most important of all, the only significant source of methylmercury exposure to humans is from eating fish and other aquatic species.
Additionally, eating fish from those areas can have effects far beyond IQ points, including increased heart attack risk for adults, and a list of other health effects.
2003, "Ecotoxicology of mercury," Chapter 16 in Hoffman, D.J., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton, Jr., and J. Cairns, Jr., eds., Handbook of Ecotoxicology, 2nd edition.: Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, p. 409-463.
And maybe most important of all, the only significant source of methylmercury exposure to humans is from eating fish and other aquatic species.
Perhaps you should have read topic from start. According to the EPA very little of the mercury in US waters is from US coal plants. Most of it enters the global cycle to which the US coal plants account for 1%.
If you are to understand the issue with mercury you first have to realize it's not a local issue but a global issue.
Perhaps you should have read topic from start. According to the EPA very little of the mercury in US waters is from US coal plants. Most of it enters the global cycle to which the US coal plants account for 1%.
If you are to understand the issue with mercury you first have to realize it's not a local issue but a global issue.
Wrong.
Look at the USGS source I gave. More than a 1/3 of released mercury deposits LOCALLY. Which states have the largest methyl mercury contamination?
Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Due to coal firing, LOCALLY. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, it is even worse since that mercury settles into the aquatic environments of the Great Lakes and is less exposed to sunlight (which naturally converts methyl mercury back to elemental mercury).
The question is not whether they are toxic, as I've already pointed out nearly anything can be toxic given a certain quantity. I've even provided two examples where a common element and a common compound can be toxic. The point of course is we don't regulate carbon dioxide emissions as they pertain to it's toxic effects because we would have to burn coal for about 40,000 years to achieve a level of toxicity that will begin to have a direct effect on humans.
The question is how the toxicity of the mercury emission from US coal plants that account for 1% of the global pool effects the US population or even the worldwide population, I'll ask again specifically what benefits are there to these regulations that justify the expense of implementing them?
Your analogy with oxygen or even CO2 toxicity is a non-sequitur. Mercury compounds, as with lead, arsenic, and other contaminants, has a high toxicity, builds up in tissue over time, and so the toxicity for many species not only starts out high, it increases with every exposure, and as it inches its way up the food chain. Once injested, it stays in the body. It doesn't get exhaled, excreted, or converted to some inert compound. The benefit is to reduce the overall exposure to a known toxic/hazardous/carcenogenic substance, the emission of which is completely controllable, and in fact, is already being controlled by processes used by half of the power industry. One half of the industry is in compliance with the regs. Why are you so dead set against the other half coming into compliance?
Look at the USGS source I gave. More than a 1/3 of released mercury deposits LOCALLY.
Correct, the EPA cites the same figure. My question to you becomes what benefit do we get from eliminating this? Again the EPA cost/benefit analysis suggests we could increase IQ points by 2/1000 of point. What other benefits do we get such as improved health or otherwise?
Why are you so dead set against the other half coming into compliance?
Because they are using mercury as a scapegoat. This has nothing to do with mercury reduction but instead closing coal plants simply by making them too expensive to operate. The common trend recently has been to use backdoors as a means to achieve a goal. In the meantime power rates keep increasing, more jobs going overseas and China just keeps on pumping more and more mercury into the atmosphere more than making up for any cuts we have made here.
Because they are using mercury as a scapegoat. This has nothing to do with mercury reduction but instead closing coal plants simply by making them too expensive to operate. The common trend recently has been to use backdoors as a means to achieve a goal. In the meantime power rates keep increasing, more jobs going overseas and China just keeps on pumping more and more mercury into the atmosphere more than making up for any cuts we have made here.
These are the same arguments that were promoted to try to prevent the promulgation of the same kinds of environmental regulations meant to clean up other industries. These arguments are just as false now as they were then. And Coalman, the Chinese can no more supply us with electricity than they can supply us with magic wands. Electrical energy production is, by default, a local/regional enterrprise. So those jobs are certainly not going to go overseas. Just because other countries may be generating more of a particular type of pollution doesn't absolve us of our own responsibility to mitigate our own pollution. It's a red herring, dude.
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.
