Yesterday, I wrote about revelations that Bush Administration officials exerted pressure on staff scientists at the EPA to distort scientific findings in order to provide political cover for the so-called Clear Skies Initiative. Independent analysts have long pointed out that the Bush Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative would actually allow pollution of America’s air to increase dramatically, give special new loopholes to polluting industries and concentrate air pollution in particular zones of the United States that are economically vulnerable to environmental exploitation.
What I didn’t mention yesterday is that the new report by the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency confirms that the Bush Administration allowed pollution industry lobbyists to write large sections of the Clear Skies Initiative. Years ago, lawyers at Latham & Watkins, a firm that lobbies the federal government on big corporate polluters in the power industry, wrote memos suggesting language that could be used to enable more air pollution to take place without government regulation. Then, the exact same language appeared in the Clear Skies Initiative pollution plan pushed by the Bush Administration. The Washington Post reports, “A side-by-side comparison of one of the three proposed rules and the memorandums prepared by Latham & Watkins … shows that at least a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions.”
In a striking non-coincidence, George W. Bush’s appointee to the position of EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation is Jeffrey Holmstead, who used to work at Latham and Watkins, helping corporations evade the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
This kind of corporate backroom influence over the scientific institutions of our government is not merely corrupt. It is dangerous. If the Bush Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative is put into action, 600,000 American children are projected to be exposed to mercury poisoning that increases every year.
Are we Americans, who so proudly trumpet our “moral values”, really going to let the Bush Administration expose our kids to mercury, just so the lawyers at Latham and Watkins can report back to their clients that they don’t have to spend much money on preventing air pollution anymore?
Mercury… ah, the newest scare tactic from environmentalists. First, it was DDT. “It’s a carcinogen,” they cried. Turns out, it isn’t. (Sweeney Committee, 25 April 1972). Since then, millions have died because from malaria because the most effective mosquito repellant was banned. Oh wait; it was never banned. But if countries use it, they get no foreign aid. A perverse Catch-22 here- use it, and you save millions of lives; use it, and you lose millions of dollars. Money does make the world go ’round, I suppose.
Now it seems Mercury is the new poster child. I won’t argue Mercury is safe; it’s not. I certainly wouldn’t put it on pancakes, that’s for sure. But let’s look at some facts:
There has been one instance of mercury poisoning- Japan’s Minimata Bay.
According to Alan Caruba,”the US is responsible, according to the EPA, for 3.6 percent of the world’s total, despite the fact that the US represents about 25 percent of the world’s total economic activity. That means 97.4 percent comes from someplace else. Even so, not one of the articles reports that there is NO evidence that mercury emissions have killed a single person on the face of the earth.”
And where does the other 97% and change come from? According to Michael Williams, of the Texas Railroad Commission, “According to the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, an estimated 5,000 to 5,500 tons of mercury are released into the atmosphere globally every year. About half of that comes from man-made sources (mainly from Asia), while the other half comes from naturally occurring sources – such as oceans, volcanoes and wildfires. Scientists also report that this mercury released into the atmosphere travels thousands of miles and remains airborne for up to a year.
Coal-fueled power plants in Texas emit about five tons of mercury in a year. That’s one-tenth of 1 percent of the total mercury in the atmosphere on any given day. By comparison, 800 tons of mercury are emitted by wildfires, prescribed burns and crop burning annually, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research. It hardly comes as a surprise, then, to learn that U.S. power plant emissions have very little impact on mercury levels in either humans or fish. According to EPA tests, cutting mercury emissions in all U.S. power plants by 50 percent would reduce the level of mercury in U.S. waters by an average of only 3 percent.”
But what about eating it? That’s unsafe, right? Well, yes it is. But to get enough Mercury in your system to harm you, much less kill you, you’d have to eat as much swordfish, king mackeral, and other various “larger” fish as a normal person would eat in 3 years. Or a person who eats slightly more than the average person eats in 2 years. In less than a year. Who eats that much of those types of fish, much less seafood in general, in one year? The Japanese? Pacific Islanders? Norwegians? Heard of any spikes in Mercury deaths in those locales? Me either.
Michael Williams also says that “…it costs $200 a ton to remove sulfur dioxide from emissions, $2,000 a ton to remove nitrogen oxide and $200 million a ton to remove mercury. At that price – to buy what would be nothing more than an infinitesimal improvement in emissions – we would completely upend the cost of electricity for every home in (Texas).”
I’m not saying that Mercury isn’t dangerous and steps shouldn’t be taken to curb its release- but let’s be realistic.
Also, I think the environment should be taken better care of. I am not advocating a pollution free-for-all; that’s not it at all. But let science speak for the environment, not blind emotion or a political adgenda– from ANY party.
If experiements were altered to support a political agenda, then those responsible should be punished accordingly. That’s unacceptable on ANY level, from ANY organization.
Kevin,
I’m sorry, but this information just isn’t accurate. The fact is that, in most states, mercury pollution is so bad that families that go fishing are not able to eat their catch.
I live, and grew up, near Lake Ontario, and I’ll tell you that the economic effects of the mercury pollution there have been devastating. It used to be that people came from all around to fish in Lake Ontario, but in recent decades, they just don’t bother because the fish are poison. The same poisoning that took place early in Lake Ontario is now taking place all around the country.
It doesn’t have to be a carcinogen to be a killer, Kevin. My pregnant wife can’t eat fish, because the levels of mercury even in store-bought or restaurant fish are sufficient to cause a miscarriage. The suggestion by Alan Caruba that there is no evidence of any deaths caused by mercury poisoning is just plain wrong. To suggest that having people DIE from eating twice the average amount of fish is acceptable is nuts.
Be careful about the research that the Bush Administration cites to justify its policies. Remember that the Bush Republicans in the federal government have been caught pressuring staff scientists at the EPA to falsify their analysis. If mercury isn’t really a problem, then why does the Bush Administration spend so much energy extorting fake scientific findings out of government agencies to justify its pro-mercury-pollution plans?
Kids all across America are suffering from mercury poisoning that’s so bad that it’s affecting their ability to perform basic mental functions. Why? They have the audacity to go fishing in local lakes and streams and eat what they catch. You don’t have to die from mercury poisoning to have it ruin your life.
Certainly not all the mercury comes from coal-fired power plants. Here in the Great Lakes region, industry also has a long history of just dumping it straight into the water. Out west, the Bush Administration is allowing mining companies to dump mine wastes directly into mountain streams that feed into drinking water for small towns and big cities alike.
It’s just plain wrong to say that there’s not a mercury pollution problem. There is, and it needs to be attacked at every source. This is no time for the Bush Administration to be allowing coal-burning plants a free ride for 15 more years, let many plants radically increase the amount of mercury they release, and the ability to concentrate their pollution in certain areas of the country.
These waterways are not owned by the corporations, Kevin. They’re not owned by the lawyers at Latham and Watkins.
We have a right to clean water and air, and if industry is polluting our air and water with toxic chemicals, they have the responsibility to clean up their act – no whining, no complaining, and no special loopholes bought with campaign contributions to George W. Bush.
It’s too expensive? Listen, the Bush Administration also claims that it’s too expensive for water utilities to avoid mixing untreated human sewage with drinking water. I’m not kidding. Maybe we’ve got a different set of values here, but my liberal values say that no amount of raw sewage in my drinking water is okay.
It’s also part of my values that big business clean up after itself, just like the rest of us – because you can’t put a price on the ability of my kids to grow up with healthy brains, you can’t put a price on my pregnant wife avoiding a miscarriage, and damn it, if I want to have fish twice a week, I ought to be able to do so without fear of dying of mercury poisoning.
Republican family values are a sham when they prevent me from taking my son fishing.
Kevin, you won’t believe me if I simply say, “is too,” so allow me to quote the
National Academy of Sciences:
Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000)
MERCURY (Hg) is widespread and persistent in the environment. Its use in many products and its emission from combustion processes have resulted in well-documented instances of population poisonings, high-level exposures of occupational groups, and worldwide chronic, low-level environmental exposures. In the environment, Hg is found in its elemental form and in various organic compounds and complexes. Methylmercury (MeHg), one organic form of Hg, can accumulate up the food chain in aquatic systems and lead to high concentrations of MeHg in predatory fish,1 which, when consumed by humans, can result in an increased risk of adverse effects in highly exposed or sensitive populations.
…
Salonen et al. (1995) compared dietary intake of fish and Hg, and compared Hg concentrations in hair and urine with the prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and death from coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease in a cohort of 1,833 Finnish men. All study participants were free of clinical heart disease, stroke, claudication, and cancer at the beginning of the study. Daily fish intake ranged from 0 to 619.2 g (mean = 46.5 g per day) and hair Hg concentrations ranged from 0 to 15.67 ppm (mean = 1.92 ppm). Dietary Hg intake ranged from 1.1 to 95.3 µg per day (mean = 7.6 µg per day). Over a 7-year observation period, men in the highest tertile (at or more than 2 ppm) of hair Hg content had a 2.0-fold higher risk of AMI than men in the two lowest tertiles.
Chronic, low-dose prenatal MeHg exposure from maternal consumption of fish has been associated with more subtle end points of neurotoxicity in children. Those end points include poor performance on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on tests of attention, fine-motor function, language, visual-spatial abilities (e.g., drawing), and verbal memory.
…
Overall, data from animal studies, including studies on nonhuman primates, indicate that the developing nervous system is a sensitive target organ for low-dose MeHg exposure. Results from animal studies have reported effects on cognitive, motor, and sensory functions.
There is also evidence in humans and animals that exposure to MeHg can have adverse effects on the developing and adult cardiovascular system (blood-pressure regulation, heart-rate variability, and heart disease). Some research demonstrated adverse cardiovascular effects at or below MeHg exposure levels associated with neurodevelopmental effects.
…
The population at highest risk is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school and who might require remedial classes or special education.
…
On the basis of its evaluation, the committee’s consensus is that the value of EPA’s current RfD for MeHg, 0.1 µg/kg per day, is a scientifically justifiable level for the protection of public health.
…
Queiroz and Dantas (1997a, b) evaluated B- and T-lymphocyte populations among 33 workers in a Brazilian Hg production facility. At the time of the study, all the workers had urinary Hg concentrations below 50 µg/g of creatinine. Analysis of T-cell populations found a reverse CD4+-to-CD8+ ratio that was haracterized by a reduction in the number of CD4+ lymphocytes. That alteration was significantly correlated with urinary Hg concentrations.
…
A study of pregnancy outcomes among the wives of 152 Hg-exposed men revealed an increased incidence of spontaneous abortions (Cordier et al. 1991). Preconception paternal urinary Hg concentrations above 50 µg/L were associated with a doubling of the spontaneous abortion risk.
…
Elghany et al. (1997) compared the pregnancy outcomes of 46 Hg-exposed workers to those of 19 women who worked in nonproduction areas of the same factory. Among cases and controls during the study period (1948-1977), 104 pregnancies were recorded. Women exposed to inorganic Hg had a higher rate of congenital anomalies.
…
Rowland et al. (1994) found that the probability of conception among female dental hygienists who prepared more than 30 amalgams per week and had at least five poor hygiene practices when handling Hg was only 63% of that among unexposed controls.
…
Children in the New Zealand cohort were followed up at 6 years of age. In that phase of the study, three controls were matched to each high-Hg child on the basis of ethnic group, sex, maternal age, maternal smoking, area of maternal residence, and the duration of maternal residence in New Zealand. One of the controls for each subject had a hair Hg concentration of 3 to 6 ppm, and the other two controls had hair Hg concentrations of 0 to 3 ppm. For one of the two low-Hg controls, maternal fish consumption was high (more than three times per week), and for the other, it was low. Fifty-seven fully matched groups of four children each and four incomplete sets (resulting in a cohort of 237 children) participated in a follow-up evaluation of neurodevelopmental status at 6 years of age (Kjellström et al. 1989). In the high-Hg group, the mean maternal-hair Hg concentration was 8.3 ppm (range 6-86 ppm, with all but 16 between 6 and 10 ppm). Extensive information was collected on possible confounding factors, such as social class, medical history, and nutrition. A battery of 26 psychological and scholastic tests was administered, assessing the domains of general intelligence, language development, fine- and gross-motor coordination, academic attainment, and social adjustment. Multiple regression analyses of five primary end points were carried out: the Test of Language Development  spoken language quotient (TOLD_SL), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) performance IQ, the WISC-R full-scale IQ, the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities perceptual-performance scale (MC_PP), and the McCarthy Scales motor scale. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, including maternal ethnic group, maternal age, maternal smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, length of maternal residence in New Zealand, social class, primary language, siblings, sex, birth weight, fetal maturity, Apgar score, and duration of breast feeding. In addition, robust regression methods were applied, involving the assignment of a weight (0 to 1) to an observation depending on the degree to which it was an outlier. In the robust regressions, maternal-hair Hg concentration was associated with poorer scores (p values ranging from 0.0034 to 0.074) on full-scale IQ, language development (spoken language quotient), visual-spatial skills (perceptual-performance scale) and gross-motor skills (motor scale).
…
The MeHg exposures of the New Zealand cohort were chronic, low dose, and most likely fairly constant over time, reflecting well-established food consumption patterns. In addition, the maternal-hair Hg concentrations were measured prospectively. As part of the SCDS pilot phase, children from the pilot cohort of 789 who turned 66 months old within a 1-year time window underwent developmental assessments (Myers et al. 1995c). Of the 247 eligible children, 217 (87.9%) were administered a test battery consisting of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities, the Preschool Language Scale, and two subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement: letter-word identification and applied problems. All 73 children with maternal-hair Hg concentrations greater than or equal to 9 ppm or less than or equal to 4 ppm were assessed. The median maternal-hair Hg concentration in that subsample of the pilot cohort was 7.1 ppm (1.0 to 36.4). The frequency of missing values was substantial for some end points (e.g., 34% for the summary score of the general cognitive index (GCI) yielded by the McCarthy scales). Increased maternal-hair Hg concentrations were associated with significantly lower GCI scores (p = 0.024). Scores declined approximately 5 points between the lowest (3 ppm or less) and highest (greater than 12ppm) exposure categories. A similar association was found on the perceptual-performance scale of the McCarthy scales (p = 0.013). Children’s scores on the auditory comprehension scale of the Preschool Language Scale were also inversely associated with maternal-hair Hg concentrations (p = 0.0019).
…
In the Faroe Islands cohort, comprehensive evaluations were conducted at approximately 7 years of age on 917 (90.3%) of the surviving members of a 1986-1987 birth cohort of 1,022 singleton births (Grandjean et al. 1997). The neuropsychological battery included three computer-administered tests from the Neurobehavioral Evaluation System (NES) (finger tapping, hand-eye coordination, and continuous performance test), the Tactual Performance Test, three subtests of the WISC-R (digit span, similarities, and block design), the Bender Gestalt Test, the California Verbal Learning Test  Children, the Boston Naming Test, and the Nonverbal Analogue Profile of Mood States. Parents were administered selected items from the Child Behavior Checklist. The primary measure of MeHg exposure was the concentration of Hg in umbilical cord blood (geometric mean, 22.9 µg/L; interquartile range, 13.4-41.3 µg/L; 894 measurements). Measurements were made of the concentration of Hg in maternal hair at parturition (geometric mean, 4.3 ppm; interquartile range, 2.6-7.7 ppm; N = 914), child hair at 12 months of age (geometric mean, 1.1 ppm; interquartile range, 0.7-1.9 ppm, N = 527), and child hair at 7 years (geometric mean, 3.0 ppm; interquartile range, 1.7-6.1 ppm, N = 903).
Not all children were able to complete all tests, and, in some cases, failure was associated with significantly increased Hg concentrations (e.g., finger opposition test and mood test). In multiple regression analyses, increased cord-blood Hg concentration was significantly associated with worse scores on finger tapping (preferred hand, p = 0.05), continuous performance test in the first year of data collection (false negatives, p = 0.02; mean reaction time, p = 0.001), WISC-R digit span (p = 0.05), Boston Naming Test (no cues, p = 0.0003; with cues, p = 0.0001), and the California Verbal Learning Test  Children (short-term reproduction, p = 0.02; long-term reproduction, p = 0.05)…. Five tests were selected, on the basis of high psychometric validity, to represent key domains of cognitive function: motor, attention, visual-spatial ability, language, and memory. For the tests selected to represent attention, language, and memory, the percentages of children with adjusted scores in the lowest quartile increased significantly as cord-blood Hg concentration increased.
….
Important data on the impact of chronic low-dose MeHg exposures on adult neurological and sensory function are being generated in ongoing studies of fish-eating populations living in the Amazon Basin, where gold is extracted from soil or river sediments and Hg is released. Lebel et al. (1996) studied 29 young adults (ages, 15-35 years; 14 females and 15 males) randomly selected from participants in a previous survey. The geometric-mean hair Hg concentration was 14.0 ppm (range, 5.6 to 38.4 ppm). Subjects underwent a battery of quantitative behavioral, sensory, and motor tests, including tests of visual functions (near and far acuity, chromatic discrimination, near contrast sensitivity, and peripheral visual fields) and motor functions (maximum grip strength and manual dexterity). Individuals with increased hair Hg concentrations had reduced chromatic discrimination. Three individuals with hair Hg concentrations above 24 ppm demonstrated reduced contrast sensitivity, and individuals with concentrations above 20 ppm tended to demonstrate reductions in peripheral visual fields. An increase from 10 to 20 ppm was associated with about a 10 degree difference.
In a subsequent study, Lebel et al. (1998) assembled another sample of 91 individuals (ages 15-81 years), representing approximately 38% of the adult population of the study village. Four measures of exposure were derived based on the Hg concentration in a hair sample (length not specified): mean total hair Hg averaged over all 1-cm segments of the sample (up to 24 segments), total Hg in the first centimeter, maximum total Hg in any segment, and MeHg in the first centimeter. Individuals for whom at least 1 cm of hair contained MeHg at more than 50 ppm were excluded. The mean hair MeHg concentration was approximately 13 ppm. The assessments included the same tests of motor (maximum grip strength and manual dexterity) and visual functions (acuity, chromatic discrimination, and near contrast sensitivity) that were used in the previous study. In addition, a clinical neurological examination was administered to a random sample of the cohort (59 subjects). That examination included the Branches Alternate Movement Task (BAMT), which requires imitation of a prescribed sequence of hand movements. Abnormal performance on the BAMT was significantly associated with all measures of Hg exposure, and abnormal visual fields were associated with mean hair Hg and peak Hg concentrations…. The authors stress that the dose-related decrements in visual and motor functions were associated with hair Hg concentrations below 50 ppm, a range in which clinical signs of Hg intoxication are not apparent. The Hg exposure of the cohort is presumed to have resulted from fish-consumption patterns that are stable and thus relevant to estimating the risk associated with chronic, low-dose MeHg exposure.
….
CONCLUSIONS
MeHg is highly toxic. The data reviewed in this chapter indicate that the adverse effects of MeHg exposure can be expressed in multiple organ systems throughout the lifespan.
Having quoted extensively, now I’ll speak for myself. Beyond the two historical mass mercury poisonings (Japan and Iraq) and numerous small-scale mercury poisonings in occupational situations, there is a demonstrable rise in low-level exposure to mercury in the environment. Although the NAS says not all research questions have been adequately answered to date and more prospective rather than retrospective studies are called for, a number of studies have shown an effect of low-level exposure to mercury compounds, particularly pre-natal exposure, and particularly with regard to neurological function.
Reality is complicated, and the results described in the NAS review are subtle. But your flip dismissal of the dangers of mercury seems unwarranted. You want science to speak? Fine. Science, in the form of the NAS review, has spoken, and after an exhaustive review recommended appropriate levels for minimum exposure.
So, what’s keeping you from fishing in lakes, rivers, etc. is Mercury? What about all the other crap (literally and figuratively) floating in those bodies of water? I’m more worried about that than Hg. Also, are these families able to detect the level of mercury poisoning on the spot, or do they take the suspect creature to a lab? These bodies of water, particularly the Great Lakes, are suspiciously close to factories, plants, etc.- heavy industry. Perhaps other contaminants are MORE to blame.
As for your family’s decision to not eat fish, well, that’s your decision to make. No harm in taking precautions, especially where your loved ones are concerned. Maybe my views will change when I have a family; I’ll leave that option open.
As for the studies, well, there are studies that prove whatever viewpoint you or I or anybody else has. That’s a fact. I won’t argue against the studies you present; they have their own validity on some scale, I suppose. I am skeptical of environmental stuff simply because I find it odd that certain “studies” can predict the weather pattern for the next 100+ years, but the American Meteorological Society goofs on the forecast for the comingn week roughly 50% of the time, give or take a percentage point or so.
Re the Salonen study: “over a 7year observation period, men in the highest tertile (at or more than 2 ppm) of hair Hg content had a 2.0-fold higher risk of AMI than men in the two lowest tertiles”
How many men were in top tertile? A majority? A few? The same results could probably be obtained by studying the effects of eating red meat with regard to heart disease.
I don’t doubt there is a connection between Mercury and some health defects; but I don’t think it is the widespread problem you make it out to be. A lot of the studies you cite mention heart/cardiovascular disease. There are MANY factors that determine whether one has problems in that area or not. Genetics. Diet. Exercise habits. Smoker/Nonsmoker. Etc. Etc.
Like I said, there are studies to validate almost any claim one can make. If it turns out that Mercury is a serious problem, I will gladly stand corrected. But a few instances (in relation to the billions and billions of people on Earth) of health problems that could, potentially, have any number of explanations other than Mercury will not convince me of a need for widespread panic. At least not yet.
Listen to the fishermen. They’ll tell you themselves. They’re stopping fishing because of the mercury.
And there being a lot of other industrial junk in our water from Republican corporate contributors is no excuse.