Posted on 11/01/2013 8:59:14 AM PDT by Titus-Maximus
Back in December, I wrote about the absurdity of the EPA claim that coal-fired power plants produced significant mercury which necessitated drastic reductions at any cost. I was then puzzled that the EPA did not produce maps of the mercury concentrations that would show the mercury was found in higher concentrations downwind of coal-fired power plants. It turns out that maps of the concentrations of mercury do exist and can be examined. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program produces annual maps of the mercury concentrations across the USA here. Note that the mercury high concentration areas changed somewhat between 2009 and 2010, but coal-fired power plants do not have giant chicken legs to rise up and walk to a new location. But, the highest mercury concentrations are in the Southern Rocky Mountains and in the plains states just to the west of those southern Rocky Mountains.
objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2012/04/coal-fired-power-plants-produce.html
If the maps supported their assertions, the higher concentrations would be out “my way” as the weather patterns tend to drag stuff eastward/northeastward.
I’d love to see their explanation for the maps and the fact that they don’t back their assertions.
Volcanoes, when they erupt, put out way, way more mercury than humanity. Where’s the EPA on this???
Merury, like arsenic and selenium are often found in areas of former volcanic activity. Industrial pollution is not the main source.
It’s not about Mercury, it’s about Marxism.
Pray America is Waking Up
More Obama lies.
Not much correlation. But hey - who are you gonna believe, the EPA or your lying eyes?
The Big Thompson river in Colorado has “high” Mercury levels but they are low enough that EPA will not act. I wonder when the truth will come out about EPA air pollution figures and the alcohol rip off will be exposed.
Maps of mercury content from power plants would not be significant because industrial pollution is not the main source. Mercury is a natural occurring element in areas of former volcanic activity. You will see that Mercury concentrations are probably the same as arsenic and selenium.
I read the Harvard Arsenic study before it was completed (it was all on-line). What the study actually said was that the areas of the country that had the highest level of arsenic, also have the highest levels of selenium and the lowest levels of the bladder cancer that arsenic is said to cause. The reason is the presence of selenium. Selenium acts as a natural carcinogenic by combining with the arsenic and washing it from the body. It does the same for mercury.
So, in areas of high arsenic or mercury people should take selenium supplements. The industrial pollution with mercury would pale in comparison to the naturally occurring mercury, so they would be meaningless.
The red on that map looks awfully similar to the pattern produced by the Lava Creek Tuff from one of the Yellowstone Caldera eruptions.
I know.
This is the same EPA that convinces us to use mercury gas filled CFL lamps which contain 100000000 times the safe exposure levels. And of course the stupid ugly fluorescent tubes that they have been shoving down our throats for 50 years.
When cornered on this the EPA has the gall to say they are actually reducing the mercury in the air because of less power consumption from coal plants.
One stupid CFL. =. 15 milligrams. One t8 tube = 40 mg
Atmospheric conc from all coal plants shown here
Like .0000018 mg per l.
It is stunning to me that no one is alarmed at these facts
Couple that with the fact the light given off by these mercury tubes is terrible and hurts sensitive people well gee
There’s your EPA. All for protecting the environment.
Yeah right
The True Believers do not NEED anything to back up their assertions.
But the rest of us, in our perversity, are looking for some logical or critical thinking to determine why and how they came to these conclusions.
Clean coal is entirely possible, and can be done with technology widely available today, with virtually NO fly ash, NO heavy metal release, NO sulfur oxides, and only water vapor and carbon dioxide as combustion products. Look up “Fischer–Tropsch process”.
The True Believers have largely based their objections to burning of coal to the “carbon footprint”, as coal, being composed almost entirely of elemental carbon, must necessarily produce just about the maximum of carbon dioxide, of all the “fossil fuels” now being used as energy sources.
The “carbon footprint” argument is in itself based on a false premise, that carbon dioxide once formed, simply continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, leading to “runaway” global warming (neither demonstrated nor provable by ANY standard). On the contrary, carbon dioxide, an important part of the cycle of life, is in near scarcity levels in the atmosphere and in the water, and we should be doing EVERYTHING we can to increase the availability of that very necessary compound.
Carbon dioxide is plant food, and in its absence, all life would wither away and most of it would die.
The red areas are also where a lot of the sub-bituminous coal is being mined.
The AGW True Believers would be against anything that meant mankind could advance.
They truly believe the world “must” be “depopulated” by a certain extent.
How they want to accomplish that, they dance around that question.
That the same stuff buried under volcanic tuff?
You forgot Fluidized Beds :-0 !
Seriously, eons ago a relative that is an eco-greenie got on a screed about Mercury in Coal. I found the maps on the web. One valley in UpState NY was one of the hot spots. And I asked why? No prevailing winds their, it didn't make sense
Are their other factors? I am sure as one gent mentioned on this thread, it denotes former volcanic activity.
I look for other FR wisdom as to other sources as well....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
