Excerpt: "Mercury is a dangerous brain poison that doesn't belong in our Great Lakes. It puts the health of kids and pregnant women at risk and adds an unwelcome danger to eating what our fishermen catch."
Mercury emissions from power plants in the Great Lakes region account for close to 25% of the nation's mercury emissions total. (photo: Eco Watch)
Power Plant Mercury Emissions Poisoning the Great Lakes
10 June 12
his week we released a report, Poisoning the Great Lakes: Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants in the Great Lakes Region, which highlights the impacts of mercury emissions from Great Lakes power plants on the people, fish, birds, and wildlife of our region. EPA recently issued new nationwide Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that require power plants to cut their mercury emissions by 90% on average, as well as to make similar cuts to their emissions of arsenic, lead, acid gases, and other toxic air pollution.
Our report focuses on the 144 coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes region, and names the 25 worst emitters, which were responsible for putting over 7,000 pounds of mercury into the air in 2010. Mercury emissions from power plants in the Great Lakes region account for close to 25% of the nation's mercury emissions total. Mercury is so highly toxic that exposure to even very small amounts in fish has serious implications for public health, and especially our children's health. And mercury fish consumption advisories depress the Great Lakes' multi-billion dollar fishing economy.
Mercury is a dangerous brain poison that doesn't belong in our Great Lakes. It puts the health of kids and pregnant women at risk and adds an unwelcome danger to eating what our fishermen catch. That's why it is so important that we support the EPA's standards to reduce mercury pollution by holding polluters accountable. Even more critical is that every single US Senator from the region stand up for the Lakes by rejecting reckless attempts to derail the long overdue Clean Air Act updates that can help tame this problem.
EPA's authority to adopt these critical safeguards goes back to 1990, when the first President Bush signed amendments to the Clean Air Act that were passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress and directed EPA to set standards on major sources such as power plants. But now, twenty-two years later, Congress is seeking to roll back these and other basic provisions of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act that have protected our health and environment for decades.
Next week we expect that there will be a vote in the U.S. Senate on a resolution that would void EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and permanently block EPA from re-issuing similar safeguards. At stake in this vote are the thousands of lives that would be saved every year by the EPA standards and the hundreds of thousands of avoided respiratory illnesses and lost work days.
Many power companies support EPA's standards, along with doctors, nurses, scientists, and public health professionals. We have all known for years that these standards were imminent, and many companies have already invested millions to reduce their mercury and toxic air emissions. Meanwhile, other industries have worked hard to clean up their own pollution. Rolling back EPA's power plant standards now would unfairly penalize companies that have invested money to modernize their plants, while granting amnesty to the laggards that disregarded the law and kept polluting and harming our children's health. Many of the plants have been operating for decades without modern pollution controls. It's long overdue for these polluters to clean up their act and stop demanding that we subsidize their plants with our lungs.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
For instance, it should be noted that all of the pollutants mentioned are naturally occurring chemicals. Standards should be set that allow some levels of these potentially dangerous chemicals. I once was responsible for a clean-up that could not be done since the outside air that we were bringing into the clean up site did not meet EPA standards. In order to meet the EPA standards, I would have had to clean up the state of Massachusetts and send the collected contaminant into space in a rocket.
The EPA needs to identify "threshhold" levels of pollutants (with the threshhold defined as the level at which damage will be done) and make those the standards. At present, they merely assert linear relationships between damage and volume of pollutants which results in unfeasibly low standards in some areas.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Hummmmmm, did it ever occur to you that the "clean up air" was polluted by industries, and was not "natural-occurr ing?"
It won't end until these power plants are eliminated.
I don't want to give in to cynicism, but given the fact that this world is currently overpopulated, I'm sure losing a few hundred thousand people here and there won't affect how they rationalize their decisions.
When doing a project involving the battered women's shelter in college, I was told by the director of the men's abuse counseling group that appealing to the male sense of fairness didn't work in changing their behavior. It was only when they started to collect fines, and it affected their pocketbook, that they started to change.
So deep-rooted may be the socialized male connection between their self-image, and the earning of money, it may be that in all cases of abuse, only a threat to their income may result in change.
In dealing with other people, when the only choice a person has learned is the competition model, there can only be winners and losers. A person like that usually doesn't realize how much they, and everyone else, will lose as well, in the long run.
American society, and child rearing can and does support male attitudes and thinking, not to mention competition.
There were boys and young men who were my students who were the epitome of that behavior, eschewing female creativity and alternate approaches to problem solving. Instant positive or negative feedback was, as you say, the only influence on that thinking and personality. Probably a shame that I was against using money to reinforce or punish!
1. I will mine uranium,
and leave the dusty waste in piles,
'cause it's a Utah wind that's blowing,
and from here, that's miles and miles,
I will build a power plant,
and never worry 'bout pollution,
I've got it all figured out,
it's such a simple solution...
2. I don't live next door,
so my water and my air stay clean,
I don't live next door,
the waste is carried somewhere else downstream,
all I have to do is keep the money rolling in,
I don't think about tomorrow,
or where this all might end,
'cause the rain falls only on the poor,
I don't live next door...
3. when I build a new golf course,
nothing concerns me but the green,
all the pesticides and poisons,
flow into someone else's stream,
I can dump my toxic waste,
at the bottom of a lake,
I know the barrels will never rust,
but here's the plan just in case...
4. repeat 2
5. I will burn the fossil fuels to create all the power,
who cares if the summer's getting hotter,
they're just paying for it by the hour,
hour after hour...
6. repeat 2
'cause the rain falls only on the poor,
I don't live next door...
Gary Burt / copyright 2003
RSS feed for comments to this post