The Mercury Scandal: Krugman NYT column

[Guest guest]

[Apparently, Krugman never had to take RhoGam <g> and thus hasn't

heard of it. He seems to need some friendly letters informing him about

physician- and nurse-injected thimerosal and about the CDC's ongoing

dilution of data concerning thimerosal's adverse effects.]

The Mercury Scandal

By PAUL KRUGMAN <krugman@...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?hp

f you want a single example that captures why so many people no longer

believe in the good intentions of the Bush administration, look at the

case of mercury pollution.

Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and infants

-- which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant women

and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore tuna,

that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of American

women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the Environmental

Protection Agency considers safe.

During the 1990's, government regulation greatly reduced mercury

emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving power

plants as the main problem. In 2000, the E.P.A. determined that mercury

is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which requires

that such substances be strictly controlled. E.P.A. staff estimated that

enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in

power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.

A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this

determination and proposed a " cap and trade " system for mercury that it

claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other estimates

suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.

For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while letting

polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to

reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, which

causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly shows

that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.

Sulfur dioxide is light, and travels long distances: power plants in the

Midwest can cause acid rain in Maine. So a cap on total national

emissions makes sense. Mercury is heavy: much of it precipitates to the

ground near the source. As a result, coal-fired power plants in states

like Pennsylvania and Michigan create " hot spots " -- chemical Chernobyls

-- where the risks of mercury poisoning are severe. Under a

cap-and-trade system, these plants are likely to purchase pollution

rights rather than cut emissions. In other words, the administration

proposal would perpetuate mercury pollution where it does the most harm.

That probably means thousands of children born with preventable

neurological problems.

So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously wrong

on the science?

The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse.

The head of the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation, like most key

environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously made his

living representing polluting industries (which, in case you haven't

guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the administration

didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the

polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the

administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.

E.P.A. experts normally study regulations before they are issued, but

they were bypassed. According to The Los Angeles Times: " E.P.A. staffers

say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic

studies called for under a standing executive order. . . . E.P.A.

veterans say they cannot recall another instance where the agency's

technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory proposal. "

Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in

environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a devastating

article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the

administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the

polluters' wildest dreams.

And the corruption of the policy process -- in which political

appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical experts

who might present information their superiors don't want to hear are

muzzled -- has infected every area I know anything about, from tax cuts

to matters of war and peace.

A Yawngate update: CNN called me to insist that despite what it first

said, the administration really, truly wasn't responsible for the

network's claim that Letterman's embarrassing video of a Bush

speech was a fake. I still don't understand why the network didn't deny

White House involvement until it retracted the charge. But the main

point of Friday's column was to highlight the way CNN facilitated crude

administration smears of e.

Copyright 2004

<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html> The New

York Times Compa <http://www.nytco.com/>ny

*

The material in this post is distributed without profit to those

who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

<http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

<http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for

purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission

from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

When anything is injected into the muscle it does not have the

ability to be

cleaned out by the LIVER... When you ingested a toxin the liver will

attempt to filter out much of the damaging material. When you are

injected

with a substance then the liver does not have the ability to cleanse

the

blood stream or the lymphatic system that runs through the muscle

tissue,

thus anything that is injected will transfer to the fetus directly

through

those systems. The FDA is warning pregnant women not to eat

fish? But is encouraging that pregnant women take the flu vaccine

with mercury in it? Is there something wrong with this picture?

> [Apparently, Krugman never had to take RhoGam <g> and thus

hasn't

> heard of it. He seems to need some friendly letters informing him

about

> physician- and nurse-injected thimerosal and about the CDC's

ongoing

> dilution of data concerning thimerosal's adverse effects.]

>

> The Mercury Scandal

> By PAUL KRUGMAN <krugman@n...>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?hp

>

> f you want a single example that captures why so many people no

longer

> believe in the good intentions of the Bush administration, look at

the

> case of mercury pollution.

>

> Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and

infants

> -- which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant

women

> and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore

tuna,

> that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of

American

> women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the

Environmental

> Protection Agency considers safe.

>

> During the 1990's, government regulation greatly reduced mercury

> emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving

power

> plants as the main problem. In 2000, the E.P.A. determined that

mercury

> is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which

requires

> that such substances be strictly controlled. E.P.A. staff

estimated that

> enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in

> power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.

>

> A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this

> determination and proposed a " cap and trade " system for mercury

that it

> claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other

estimates

> suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.

>

> For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while

letting

> polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to

> reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide,

which

> causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly

shows

> that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.

>

> Sulfur dioxide is light, and travels long distances: power plants

in the

> Midwest can cause acid rain in Maine. So a cap on total national

> emissions makes sense. Mercury is heavy: much of it precipitates

to the

> ground near the source. As a result, coal-fired power plants in

states

> like Pennsylvania and Michigan create " hot spots " -- chemical

Chernobyls

> -- where the risks of mercury poisoning are severe. Under a

> cap-and-trade system, these plants are likely to purchase

pollution

> rights rather than cut emissions. In other words, the

administration

> proposal would perpetuate mercury pollution where it does the most

harm.

> That probably means thousands of children born with preventable

> neurological problems.

>

> So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously

wrong

> on the science?

>

> The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the

henhouse.

> The head of the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation, like most

key

> environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously

made his

> living representing polluting industries (which, in case you

haven't

> guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the

administration

> didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the

> polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the

> administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.

>

> E.P.A. experts normally study regulations before they are issued,

but

> they were bypassed. According to The Los Angeles Times: " E.P.A.

staffers

> say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and

economic

> studies called for under a standing executive order. . . . E.P.A.

> veterans say they cannot recall another instance where the

agency's

> technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory

proposal. "

>

> Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in

> environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a

devastating

> article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the

> administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the

> polluters' wildest dreams.

>

> And the corruption of the policy process -- in which political

> appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical

experts

> who might present information their superiors don't want to hear

are

> muzzled -- has infected every area I know anything about, from tax

cuts

> to matters of war and peace.

>

> A Yawngate update: CNN called me to insist that despite what it

first

> said, the administration really, truly wasn't responsible for the

> network's claim that Letterman's embarrassing video of a

Bush

> speech was a fake. I still don't understand why the network didn't

deny

> White House involvement until it retracted the charge. But the

main

> point of Friday's column was to highlight the way CNN facilitated

crude

> administration smears of e.

>

> Copyright 2004

> <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html> The

New

> York Times Compa <http://www.nytco.com/>ny

> *

> The material in this post is distributed without profit to those

> who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes.

> For more information go to:

> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

> <http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>

> http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

> <http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>

> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for

> purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission

> from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The injection of mercury or any heavy metal's toxicity is quite

different

then the toxicity level that is experienced by ingestion through

food that

is contaminated by forms of mercury or heavy metals in general.

When anything is injected into the muscle it does not have the

ability to be

cleaned out by the LIVER... When you ingested a toxin the liver will

attempt to filter out much of the damaging material. When you are

injected

with a substance then the liver does not have the ability to cleanse

the

blood stream or the lymphatic system that runs through the muscle

tissue,

thus anything that is injected will transfer to the fetus directly

through

those systems.

Is eating fish more toxic then having mercury injected?

> [Apparently, Krugman never had to take RhoGam <g> and thus

hasn't

> heard of it. He seems to need some friendly letters informing him

about

> physician- and nurse-injected thimerosal and about the CDC's

ongoing

> dilution of data concerning thimerosal's adverse effects.]

>

> The Mercury Scandal

> By PAUL KRUGMAN <krugman@n...>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?hp

>

> f you want a single example that captures why so many people no

longer

> believe in the good intentions of the Bush administration, look at

the

> case of mercury pollution.

>

> Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and

infants

> -- which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant

women

> and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore

tuna,

> that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of

American

> women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the

Environmental

> Protection Agency considers safe.

>

> During the 1990's, government regulation greatly reduced mercury

> emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving

power

> plants as the main problem. In 2000, the E.P.A. determined that

mercury

> is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which

requires

> that such substances be strictly controlled. E.P.A. staff

estimated that

> enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in

> power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.

>

> A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this

> determination and proposed a " cap and trade " system for mercury

that it

> claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other

estimates

> suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.

>

> For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while

letting

> polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to

> reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide,

which

> causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly

shows

> that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.

>

> Sulfur dioxide is light, and travels long distances: power plants

in the

> Midwest can cause acid rain in Maine. So a cap on total national

> emissions makes sense. Mercury is heavy: much of it precipitates

to the

> ground near the source. As a result, coal-fired power plants in

states

> like Pennsylvania and Michigan create " hot spots " -- chemical

Chernobyls

> -- where the risks of mercury poisoning are severe. Under a

> cap-and-trade system, these plants are likely to purchase

pollution

> rights rather than cut emissions. In other words, the

administration

> proposal would perpetuate mercury pollution where it does the most

harm.

> That probably means thousands of children born with preventable

> neurological problems.

>

> So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously

wrong

> on the science?

>

> The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the

henhouse.

> The head of the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation, like most

key

> environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously

made his

> living representing polluting industries (which, in case you

haven't

> guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the

administration

> didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the

> polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the

> administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.

>

> E.P.A. experts normally study regulations before they are issued,

but

> they were bypassed. According to The Los Angeles Times: " E.P.A.

staffers

> say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and

economic

> studies called for under a standing executive order. . . . E.P.A.

> veterans say they cannot recall another instance where the

agency's

> technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory

proposal. "

>

> Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in

> environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a

devastating

> article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the

> administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the

> polluters' wildest dreams.

>

> And the corruption of the policy process -- in which political

> appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical

experts

> who might present information their superiors don't want to hear

are

> muzzled -- has infected every area I know anything about, from tax

cuts

> to matters of war and peace.

>

> A Yawngate update: CNN called me to insist that despite what it

first

> said, the administration really, truly wasn't responsible for the

> network's claim that Letterman's embarrassing video of a

Bush

> speech was a fake. I still don't understand why the network didn't

deny

> White House involvement until it retracted the charge. But the

main

> point of Friday's column was to highlight the way CNN facilitated

crude

> administration smears of e.

>

> Copyright 2004

> <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html> The

New

> York Times Compa <http://www.nytco.com/>ny

> *

> The material in this post is distributed without profit to those

> who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes.

> For more information go to:

> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

> <http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>

> http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

> <http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>

> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for

> purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission

> from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ask Krugman your question.

By PAUL KRUGMAN krugman AT nytimes.com

kevysmom04 wrote:

>The injection of mercury or any heavy metal's toxicity is quite

>different

>then the toxicity level that is experienced by ingestion through

>food that

>is contaminated by forms of mercury or heavy metals in general.

>

>

>When anything is injected into the muscle it does not have the

>ability to be

>cleaned out by the LIVER... When you ingested a toxin the liver will

>attempt to filter out much of the damaging material. When you are

>injected

>with a substance then the liver does not have the ability to cleanse

>the

>blood stream or the lymphatic system that runs through the muscle

>tissue,

>thus anything that is injected will transfer to the fetus directly

>through

>those systems.

>

>Is eating fish more toxic then having mercury injected?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>[Apparently, Krugman never had to take RhoGam <g> and thus

>>

>>

>hasn't

>

>

>>heard of it. He seems to need some friendly letters informing him

>>

>>

>about

>

>

>>physician- and nurse-injected thimerosal and about the CDC's

>>

>>

>ongoing

>

>

>>dilution of data concerning thimerosal's adverse effects.]

>>

>>The Mercury Scandal

>>By PAUL KRUGMAN <krugman@n...>

>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06KRUG.html

>>

>

>

[Guest guest]

He had a good article about mercury poisoning..But was lacking

information! So I emailed him...Ill let you know what he has to say.

Donna

> >

> >

> >>[Apparently, Krugman never had to take RhoGam <g> and thus

> >>

> >>

> >hasn't

> >

> >

> >>heard of it. He seems to need some friendly letters informing

him

> >>

> >>

> >about

> >

> >

> >>physician- and nurse-injected thimerosal and about the CDC's

> >>

> >>

> >ongoing

> >

> >

> >>dilution of data concerning thimerosal's adverse effects.]

> >>

> >>The Mercury Scandal

> >>By PAUL KRUGMAN <krugman@n...>

> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06KRUG.html

> >>

> >

> >

>

>

>