Mercury Rules Are a Toxic Double Standard, States Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
TUCSON, Ariz., June 2, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules aimed at curbing mercury emissions, which mainly affect coal-fired electrical generating plants, are based on bad science, write Willis Eschenbach and Jane M. Orient. M.D., in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Medical sources of mercury are likely far more important, but are not subject to comparable scrutiny.
Most atmospheric mercury comes from natural sources, especially the oceans, they write. U.S. power plants were responsible for about 64.1 metric tons of mercury in 2008, or 1 percent of the total 7,500 metric tons of all mercury emissions. EPA's assertion that its mercury rule will save 11,000 lives every year is absurd, authors write.
Atmospheric mercury affects human beings when deposited and incorporated into fish. Recent claims that levels in fish are increasing are based on an analysis of only 14 small fish, Eschenbach observes.
The "safe" level for ingestion of mercury is calculated based on a large number of assumptions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reference level is four times as high as the EPA level. EPA calculates that if as pregnant woman eats 300 pounds of lake fish in a year, the IQ of her unborn child would be reduced by average of 0.009 points. The average IQ test has a margin of error of about five points.
Belatedly, someone noticed that the mercury dose received in thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines exceeded the EPA reference level, and this preservative was removed from most vaccines as a "precaution."
Authors conclude that: "U.S. EPA regulatory policies with respect to coal-fired power plants and other industries, which impose enormous costs, are based on questionable methods extrapolated to absurd conclusions."
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943. The Journal is committed to "promoting open debate and scientific integrity." Articles represent the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect an official position of AAPS or the Journal.
SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
Share this article