Health benefits-mercury- really in the billions-EPA chose to overlook that

[bloom]

New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data

Study Called Stricter Limits Cost-Effective

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A01

When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff.

What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.

That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author.
<snip>

The Harvard study concluded that mercury controls similar to those the EPA proposed could save nearly $5 billion a year through reduced neurological and cardiac harm. Last Tuesday, however, officials said the health benefits were worth no more than $50 million a year while the cost to industry would be $750 million a year.
<snip>

Mercury is a toxic metal emitted by industrial sources. U.S. power plants emit 48 tons a year, and the new rule establishes an emissions-trading program that is expected to lower emissions to about 31 tons by 2010 and to about 15 tons by 2026. The Harvard analysis was based on similar targets in President Bush's "Clear Skies" legislative proposal. <more>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html

[bloom]

1. Story last week - Mercury Pollution, Autism Link Found - U.S. Study

Mercury Pollution, Autism Link Found - U.S. Study

Mar 16, 8:02 PM ET
Health - Reuters
By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Mercury released primarily from coal-fired power plants may be contributing to an increase in the number of cases of autism, a Texas researcher said on Wednesday.

A study to be published on Thursday in the journal "Health and Place" found that autism, a developmental disorder marked by communication and social interaction problems, increased in Texas counties as mercury emissions rose, said Claudia Miller, a family and community medicine professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.

"The main finding is that for every thousand pounds of environmentally released mercury, we saw a 17 percent increase in autism rates," she said in an interview.

About 48 tons of mercury are released into the air annually in the United States from hundreds of coal-burning plants.
...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&e=2...
 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1318974

[bloom]

4. link - Bush Admin wanted 50% reduction - enviros wanted a 90% reduction

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050317/hl_nm/environment_autism_dc

"The Bush administration this week ordered power plants to cut mercury pollution by 50 percent within 15 years, but environmentalists said the action fell short of what was needed. They have called for a 90 percent cut in mercury emissions."

[sui generis]

2. I need some coffee

I read this as there were unnamed benefits to having mercury in the environment, which I wouldn't put past the boosh administration.

However, it appears the mercury has already gotten to me . . .

[bloom]

3. I was afraid it too confusing...

The gist of it is - the EPA came out with new pollution-reducing standards. (Also recently a report came out linking the mercury pollution to Autism.) Their standards were based on a study that the EPA commissioned Harvard to do.

The study showed there would be $5 billion worth of health benefits for the CONTROLS on the pollution if xyz were done. And the cost to the industries would be $750 million. The EPA wants to say the BENEFITS are only worth $50 million (even though their own study said $5 billion ).

They should be having more CONTROLS but they want to minimize what the benefits would be anyway - and seem to suggest that the COSTS to the industry would be far greater than the benefits while the reverse is true.

The BENEFITS could be FAR greater than the cost to the industry.



To them it only dollars and cents and not lives lost, etc.