Robin Bravender’s Mercury Propaganda

In her PoliticoPro report today about Congressional Democrat efforts to appeal to Republican mothers to help stop Congressional Republicans from limiting new EPA regulation of mercury from power plants, Bravender writes:

Power plants are responsible for about 50 percent of annual U.S. emissions.

Wow, that sounds like quite a bit — except that it’s not.

In fact total U.S. emissions of mercury amount to about one percent of total global emissions, with about 70 percent coming from Mother Nature. That means Mother Nature emits 140 times more mercury than U.S. power plants and the rest of mankind emits 55 times more mercury than U.S. power plants.

Moreover, there’s no evidence that typical levels of mercury in the ambient environment have harmed anybody ever.

Both facts go quite along way to putting that “50 percent” factoid in perspective. But of course, Politico readers weren’t afforded that perspective by Bravender because she apparently didn’t have the time or inclination to interview anyone other than airhead-ed Democrat attack dogs Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)

About these ads

14 responses to “Robin Bravender’s Mercury Propaganda

  1. May the era of “could possibly” be coming to its end. Thank you for the information.

  2. I have yet to see even one recent study about an actual person who has a verified diminished mental capacity (or worse) due to atmospheric mercury, much less just the human contribution. I did see a Scandinavian study that found no biological impact due to mercury at levels well above those touted as being dangerous in the USA. (They eat more fish than we do.)

    • And here I was all set to explain my kids by mercury. Guess I’ll have to find some other excuse.

    • Didn’t Obie and fellow travellers suffer from too much mercury?? 8>)

      Of course they were probably rubbing it onto their gold jewelry to make a cool surface amalgam and absorbing it through the skin!!

  3. Perhaps a biological impact could explain the diminished capabilities of our congress-critters. Are mercury levels especially high in DC?

  4. Major danger of mercury poisoning comes from the “energy saver” lightbulbs, the compact elevated-pressure fluorescent gas-discharge bulbs, and not from dental fillings, unforced vaccinations or power plants. I can prove that by medical conditions in my social environment and mine.
    If Congressional Democrats want to protect people, pets, children against mercury poisoning, they should support the incandescent lightbulb and oppose its ban.

    • The danger isn’t very high, or really present from light bulbs. There is very little mercury in the bulbs, and as long as it is even moderately ventilated, you should be safe if you break some. Mostly I point it out as an example of hypocrisy. We have to regulate the lead solder in electronics but we put mercury in a place where no imagination is necessary to see it getting in children’s lungs?

      • Ben: By EPA rules, the mercury in one CFL bulb is enough to render 300 gallons of water “toxic.” Their cleanup guidelines are ridiculous.

      • The limit for a D009 waste code is .2 ppm. This means one bulb (5 mg Hg) can make 25 kg of waste legally hazardous. Significant, but far from over a ton of water.

        The limit in EPA regulations is deliberately set very, very low. Much lower than that for actual harm, and moving air is a powerful diluent.

  5. Larry in Texas

    Fascinating! I’m curious now, because I didn’t know this. Where in Mother Nature is the mercury being emitted from to comprise 70% of all emissions? I’d like to know the source of the data, too, because I’d like to learn more about this information.

  6. Larry,
    Google “Natural Mercury Emissions” and start reading.

  7. pete of John Galt

    It appears that the only identifiable victims of diminished mental capacity due to mercury is Robin Bravender and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    The “eco” left simply can’t stop the fear based themes in their effort to impose draconian restrictions on the liberty of the American people.

  8. Ronald Hathcock

    I’m tired of reading about how many children are “at risk” of starving, being poisoned, or living in poverty. If you’re alive, you are at risk, however slightly, of all of those. It’s a bogus a way of arguing as talking about how many jobs “were created or saved” by a particular government program.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s