- The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Government regulation is sometimes like the old shell game, in which trying to guess where the pea is can be devilishly difficult. An example is the nation’s first set of regulations to control mercury emissions from power plants, announced March 15 by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The culmination of years of squabbling over different approaches, the rule imposes nationwide caps to reduce emissions 70 percent by 2018, while giving individual power plants the flexibility to adopt new technology as it becomes available and determine the best way to meet the new limits.

Environmental groups had favored a plan that would more immediately institute limits on each power plant, even though the necessary technologies are still experimental and cannot reliably and consistently reduce mercury emissions for the 1,032 different plants across the country.

Environmentalists’ main objection to the “cap-and-trade” plan announced by EPA — which allows facilities to trade and sell emissions allowances while technology is being implemented — ostensibly is concern it could create ecological “hot spots” of mercury in parts of the country. But that won’t happen, according to an analysis by the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit energy and environmental research firm in Palo Alto, Calif., because most mercury comes from sources other than power plants, which contribute little to the areas of highest deposition in the U.S. In fact, the EPA’s plan produced greater overall reductions than the environmentalists’ plan.

No matter. Environmentalists and some members of Congress are alleging the new EPA rules don’t go far enough and will put thousands of unborn babies and children at risk of neurological damage because of higher methylmercury levels in fish. Their rationale is that the release of mercury from coal-burning power plants contaminates our seafood.

Here’s where the shell game comes in. Emissions from U.S. incinerators and other sources have been declining for decades. U.S. power plants now contribute less than 1 percent of the global atmospheric mercury. In fact, the U.S. discontinued mercury mining altogether in 1991 and domestic use of mercury fell more than 75 percent just between 1988 and 1996. Our air is cleaner than ever.

Moreover, there is no proof the amount of methylmercury in fish Americans eat is dangerous. Despite advisories from the government for pregnant women and children to limit consumption of fish to prevent damage to children’s developing nervous systems, the only cases in the scientific literature of mercury poisoning and subsequent neurological problems from fish were due to an industrial mercury spill in Japan in the 1950s. These resulted in methylmercury levels in fish 40 to 1,000 times higher than those consumed by Americans.

Methylmercury has always been found naturally in fish and in our bodies, but the trace levels of human exposure haven’t increased in centuries; in fact, they’re dropping. And research that has followed thousands of pregnant women and their children for nearly 15 years has found no evidence the amounts of methylmercury in our fish put children or newborn babies at risk. Even among populations eating 10 times or more the amounts of fish Americans consume, scientists have found no credible evidence of neurotoxicity, let alone brain damage, developmental delays, retardation or learning disabilities.

The sky-is-falling crowd of activists and government officials remains unconvinced. They persist in warning women there is real risk in exceeding EPA-established thresholds of methylmercury exposure set arbitrarily and with over-conservative safety margins.

To determine acceptable methylmercury levels, the EPA began with an amount at which there was no observed effect in the most sensitive of the population with a lifetime of exposure — a level nearly tenfold that found in American women — and then added another tenfold safety cushion to that.

The EPA’s safety margins are the most restrictive in the world and conflict with those adopted by other U.S. and foreign agencies around the world. Even so, tests by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found no American women or child had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood or hair.

These facts haven’t stopped the pursuit of hugely expensive regulations to limit mercury emissions — which, estimates say will reduce average methylmercury levels in our fish by no more than 1.7 parts per billion; and a careful analysis published this month by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center found “complete elimination of U.S. power plant [mercury] emissions would result in a decrease in mean maternal blood mercury levels of 0.13 parts per billion.”

To justify these infinitesimal reductions, activists and regulators have built a house of cards — for which taxpayers will pay billions. The boosted utility rates and human costs will fall disproportionately on the old, poor, minorities and children.

EPA has a history of failing to make decisions based on science and on weighing costs and benefits. As Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer describes in “Breaking the vicious circle,” similarly expensive, non-cost-effective regulations were imposed when the EPA banned asbestos pipe, shingles, coating and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years — at a cost of about a quarter-billion dollars. Justice Breyer observes the EPA action is damaging in two ways: by diverting valuable resources from other, more effective public health-care measures and by removing asbestos from existing structures in ways that make fibers airborne and pose even greater risks to human health.

It has been said we get the government we deserve. Therefore, we must demand regulatory decisions based on sound science and common sense, not on politics and unfounded fears. Only then will public policy serve the public interest.

Sandy Szwarc is a registered nurse, award-winning food editor and writer, and author of the forthcoming, “The Truth We Never Hear — about fat and dieting.” Henry I. Miller is a physician, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of “The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution,” picked by Barron’s as one of the Best 25 Books of 2004.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide