THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 11, January 15, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
MERCURY: THE LATEST GREEN SCARE CAMPAIGN
By Alan Caruba
The Greens have mastered the ability to conjure up a scare campaign about almost anything, and to do so with such perfection, that
one almost forgets that these political environmentalists are a lying bunch of lowlifes whose past lies have harmed the timber industry,
those engaged in ranching and agriculture, those who provide the chemical building blocks of everything we use every day, and those
responsible for providing the energy this nation requires to function.
Let me show you how the Greens, assisted by journalists with an agenda, create such a campaign. In this case, the target is mercury, a
common chemical which is widely used by various industries and is discharged as the result of producing energy to heat or cool one’s
home, et cetera.
On Monday, December 6, 2002, an opinion editorial, ”Don’t Let Polluters Deny Danger of Mercury,” appeared in my local daily
newspaper, the (Newark, NJ) Star-Ledger. The author was Jillian Waldman, identified as “a field associate for the New Jersey
Public Information Research Group.” PIRG is a Ralph Nader organization that passes itself off as a consumer group. The opinion
editorial referred to “prominent public health advocates” without naming them and accusing “a powerful industry coalition” of
lobbying to insure the air remains filled with mercury and other pollutants.
Now watch the chain of “news” articles that followed in the Star-Ledger. On December 9, Alexander Lane, the newspaper’s
designated reporter on environmental topics, had an article, “Air Pollution Blamed for Premature Deaths.” The same day, the
newspaper carried an article by Tom Johnson and Kevin Coughlin, “Experts: Energy Firms Ignore Upgrades.”
Two days later, Lane was back with “New Rule Targets Mercury Emissions: State Seeks to Cut Pollutant by 75 Percent.” And the next
day, December 12, the Star-Ledger ran an Associated Press article by Lauran Neergaard, “Panel Wants Greater Details in
Warning on Mercury in Fish.” This was followed on December 16 with another AP article, “EPA Would Allow 15 Years for Reduction
of Mercury: Power Plant Controls Less Stringent Than Those Proposed in Clinton Years.” Finally, on January 6, the Star-Ledger
made the “issue” into a lead editorial, “Negligence on Mercury.” The editorial demands that the federal government do more to
“reduce the dangers.” Do you see a pattern here?
What you don’t see or read is the truth about mercury in the atmosphere or in the food chain.
For example, none of these articles note the enormous cost of upgrades being demanded to reduce mercury emissions, nor the fact that
utilities have, over the years, invested billions of dollars to comply with the Clean Air Act. To make those investments, the cost of the
energy provided to consumers had to be increased. The issue these days is the cost-benefit ratio. At what point does the mandated
investment yield a level of safety that is unnecessary? Okay, no one wants pollution in the air, but just when is the air “clean” enough?
For Greens, there never is, “enough” even if there really is, as there is the case of mercury. There is no proof that anyone is actually
endangered by the miniscule amount of mercury that is released into the atmosphere as a consequence of the operations of US utilities
and industries.
The Star-Ledger editorial says it all, “But it [the federal government] is not doing enough [about the mercury pollution] from
dirty power and other industrial plants.” The target is always the same, the demand is always the same, the complaint is always the
same, and the facts on which it is based is almost always without scientific merit.
The amount of mercury pollution in question is about one percent of the total human contribution to the atmosphere. The U.S.A. is
responsible, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for 3.6 percent of the world’s total, despite the fact that the
U.S.A. represents about 25 percent of the world’s total economic activity. That means 97.4 percent comes from someplace else. Even
so, not one of the articles reports that there is NO evidence that mercury emissions have killed a single person on the face of the
earth. As Patrick J. Michaels, Virginia State Climatologist, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia and
Senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, succinctly says, “Where are the bodies? Where are the sick millions?”
For the record, there was one instance of mercury poisoning. It was Japan’s Minamata Bay where, since the 1930s, massive
industrial dumping had occurred.
Back in March, 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency came out with a report, “America’s Children and the Environment.” One
favorite way of scaring the hell out of everyone is to announce that our children are at risk. The EPA asserted that 8 percent of
American women of childbearing age had a mercury concentration of 5.8 parts per billion in their blood. I repeat, per billion. To put
it another way, 92 percent did not show any mercury concentration, even in the statistically low risk factor stated.
My friend, Steven Milloy, a Cato Institute adjunct scholar, recently tore into the current scaremongering by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Notice how the claims about mercury start with some self-appointed “consumer” or “environmental” group (often
in tandem) migrate into the EPA, and then spread to other government agencies? In December, the FDA warned against mercury
in seafood. Again, it was about the claim that trace amounts in an expectant mother’s blood was a hazard.
The FDA warned against eating swordfish, king mackerel. or tilefish “because they contain high levels of mercury.” Larger fish
usually do, Milloy noted, but he also directed the reader to a study from the Harvard School of Public Health published in the
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (February, 2002) which was unable to find mercury-related health
effects among a group of regular swordfish consumers.
Have you any idea how much swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish --indeed any fish -- you would have to eat to acquire enough
mercury to pose a health threat? A lot! A whole lot! More than you’d normally eat in a year, maybe two or three years, or longer.
The FDA is blowing smoke up your dress with their latest warning. Even by their own published standards, you can safely eat
up to twelve ounces (two to three meals) of fish and shellfish every week. And, as Milloy points out, “The FDA’s 12 ounces per
week is simply arbitrary.” It’s just government agency hocus-pocus!
Unable to dispute the Bush administration’s decision not to burden utilities and others with hugely costly requirements to
reduce pollution (that represents no real health threat!), the Greens have simply conjured up a campaign about the “dangers” of
mercury. And too many irresponsible members of the press went along with them, as they always do. You are not in any danger
from mercury, but you are in danger, once again, of being stuck with the bill if this latest scare campaign were to succeed
More on Policy Issues Relating to
Energy, Environment, & Natural Resources
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, Communications Director of the American Policy Center,
and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly
column, "Warning Signs," posted on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center
(www.anxietycenter.com). A compilation of his past col- umns, entitled Warning Signs, is published by Merril Press. In addition
to Warning Signs, Caruba is the author of A Pocket Guide to Militant Islam and The United Na- tions vs. the United States,
both of which are available from the National Anxiety Center, 9 Brookside Road, Maplewood, New Jersey, 07040.
Copyright 2004 Alan Caruba
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page Two
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page One
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy