In response to my recent report on the regulation of power plant mercury emissions, NC Policy Watch counters with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s (SELC) talking
points on mercury.? Apparently, if SELC, an extreme environmental
group, says something is true, NC Policy Watch believes it must be
true.
Some quick responses for those interested in facts and not scare tactics:
MISLEADING STATEMENT: “Roughly 70% of the mercury emitted in North Carolina comes from coal-fired power plants.”
FACT:
This 70% number represents mercury emitted from “current” man-made
emissions only in NC.? Current man-made emissions account for only
one-third of all emissions.? My source:
The EPA.? This also doesn’t take into account the minor little
fact that emission sources outside NC have the primary effect on
mercury levels in fish (methlymercury is the type of mercury that is of
concern in fish).
To support my “remarkable assertions,” I used sound science, which I guess would be remarkable for some:
Briefly though, from EPA’s just released Roadmap for Mercury:
“Research shows that most people?s fish consumption does not cause a health concern.”
I
encourage people to review the Roadmap to see the whole context of this
statement.? It also discusses that pregnant women and fetuses are
more susceptible to mercury problems as are certain subgroups of the
population.? Nobody, including me, is disputing this.
The public health debate is whether there is even a minor effect
on humans caused by methlymercury in fish.? The two leading
studies disagree about whether there is even a subtle harm on pregnant
women and their fetuses.? Keep this issue in perspective: Other
than two tragedies in Japan where large amounts of? methlymercury
were directly dumped into the water (direct discharge of high-levels of
methlymercury is not the concern when discussing power plant mercury
emissions), there is not one instance of methylmercury poisoning from
fish in the scientific literature–there is not one case ever in the
U.S.
Getting back to the two studies: The Seychelles Islands study found no harm–not even a subtle harm? The Faroe Islands study did find a subtle harm.
The
Seychelles Islands study, which many believe is the best study, didn’t
find even a subtle harm on the most sensitive in the population.?
In the Faroe Islands, the primary means of methylmercury consumption
was through whale blubber.? In the Seychelles Islands, the diet is
similar to the diet in the U.S.? In fact, the women in the
Seychelles eat 10 times more fish than we do, yet this didn’t have any
effect on them or their children.
Mercury regulations are based
on scare tactics about fish–even the Harvard School of Public Health
(HSPH) that is the employer of the Faroe Islands researcher, is trying
to stress the benefits of eating fish (and the weakness of the mercury research):
On
the research: “Bear in mind, HSPH investigators say, that research to
date has found no significant ill effects from mercury at the lifetime
levels to which most humans are exposed.”?
On fish consumption: “Until more research further clarifies all
these risks and benefits, what’s a consumer to do? Enjoy fish, HSPH
researchers urge.”
