A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine today debunks the EPA-claimed link between exposure to mercury and cardiovascular disease.
Click here for the study abstract.
This study is important as it debunks part of the EPA’s rationale for its recently proposed clamp down on mercury and other emissions from power plants.
Click here for the proposed rule excerpt in which the EPA discusses its view of the methymercury-heart disease data.
A special United States “vaccine court” dismissed three cases that were attempting to establish a link between mercury-containing immunizations and autism*. Since this ruling the EPA has had their feather ruffeled……
*http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3127-court-rules-against-autism-vaccine-link
Mercury is handy because it can be used for the real agenda, elimination of coal-fired power plants. Before green house gasses and that evil carbon pollution rose to popularity, mercury was the scare de jour. Now that GHG is waning, mercury makes a comeback.
The EPA will not be fooled by facts, they have an agenda.
But mercury in all the lightbulbs they intend to force us to use (and break) is still OK. The science all depends on what fits the narrative, of course.
Wait and see how this turns out as money and power drive all of these issues. The elected ruling class cares not a fig about CO2. What they care about is the money and power they will get from controlling carbon as it is responsible for 80% of all our power and 100% of that which makes wheels go round, even on electric cars. Follow the money.
The Two Minute Conservative is at: http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for ideas, science and humor new every day and now on Kindle. Come see us.
Unfortunately that probably won’t matter. The EPA will just change their rationale and still arrive at their same conclusion. That’s how they operate. EPA was Nixon’s biggest blunder. It needs to be shut down.
Does it matter? The EPA has already demonstrated that it will enact policy based on bad science merely because it is science that agrees with it’s regulatory vision. What’s good for America isn’t necessarily good for the EPA.