Mercury rising: the USGS report tells only part of the story

A new report released last week by the U.S. Geological Survey measuring mercury levels in fish is not the first such warning we’ve had about this. In fact, the report probably understates the seriousness of mercury contamination in America, and certainly in this part of Texas.

According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?

USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.

In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.

Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.

Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.

This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.

The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.

So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.

And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.

I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.

Sources on the Web …

The USGS report is here: http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081909.html
The “Reel Danger” report is here: http://agresearch.umd.edu/cfnap/realmercuryfacts/studies/reel.htm
A similar report from the Pew Trust is here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30683
The University of Pittsburgh report is here: http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2007/Pages/APHA2007VolzUpstream.aspx
The University of Texas Health Science Center report is here: http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=2732

On point

In fact, it's so on point, it's devastating. (Full disclosure: I stole the link from a friend's Facebook page ...)

Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable

"Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke."

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/

I get it. Why don't you?

So, let me get this straight ...

You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).

Is that right?

I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.

But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.

In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.

In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.

Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.

And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)

In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).

In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.

In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.

It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.

In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?

As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.

Insurance: it's the wrong debate

It's clear the events of the last 18 months have thoroughly discredited the "small government" approach. I'll grant that there is something particularly Jeffersonian about the concept ("the government that governs best governs least") but the common good simply is not served.

It's true, government can't solve all our ills ... nor should it be expected to. However, it can (and should) be able to address those issues that serve the common good.

I have several conservative friends (yes, I do). They hold some pretty strong opinions on health care, opinions I absolutely do not share.

My opinions are pretty strong as well. There is nothing anyone can do or say that will change my belief that our health care system sucks. Excuse me, our health care DELIVERY SYSTEM sucks.

Cubans have better access to health care than the average American and certainly poor Cubans have better access to health care then poor or lower middle class Americans. My personal experiences will trump your Cato Institute anecdotal study ...

Further, the latest studies are clear that US mortality is among the worst of industrialized countries at a per-capita cost that is orders of magnitude greater. In other words, everyone else in the industrialized world has greater access to necessary health care at significantly lower personal cost than Americans do.

Let me put this another way: even accounting for the higher taxes socialized medicine requires, nearly every citizen of nearly every industrialized country on this planet has better access to better health care at a lower cost than Americans do.

As long as the "solution" includes insurance companies, we'll never fix it because profits will trump care every time. Health care costs will continue to eat up an increasingly catastrophic portion of our GDP.

In fact, as long as the debate is about health insurance, we're holding the wrong debate.

It wasn't only shoddy products that brought down GM ... it was the way this country deals with health care (blame the unions, if you want -- and they deserve some blame -- but the way this country approaches health care offers one helluva an example on how to keep the great unwashed in its collective place).

In other words, I don't think Obama will go far enough ...

Call is socialism, whatever. I think affordable health care (notice I didn't say "affordable health INSURANCE") is a basic human right.

Any other debate is the wrong debate.

Fly and bottom — toxic coal

For decades, manufacturing companies like Alcoa told us that their process was safe, that workers weren't at risk when they toiled on the potline or that the clothes they wore home -- laden with asbestos dust -- would not harm their families.

And, we trusted them. Right? Of course we did! This was the 1960s and we were urged to pursue plastics and better living through chemistry. Besides, companies like Alcoa virtually kept towns like Rockdale alive.

Later, we found out that, much like many other chemicals and compounds, asbestos was deadly, that the airborne fibers would work their way into our lungs where they would never go away and, in fact, would cause some of us to die particularly gruesome deaths.

Worse, the managers at these companies knew this. They were quite aware that exposure to asbestos (or other carcinogens) had the potential for nasty side effects but, instead of warning their work force or the people who lived around their smelters, they just kept on, hoping that no one would understand or care about the research being developed, research that confirmed just how deadly asbestos really was.

Today, they are telling us that the waste left from burning the coal to make the electricity to run the smelter to refine the aluminum is safe. The stuff is full of oddball contaminants and heavy metals like beryllium and chromium and mercury and lead and selenuium. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff, right?

Over the decades, Alcoa and TXU dumped all the fly and bottom ash they couldn't sell back into the strip mines the coal originally came from. That's how they reclaimed the acreage, and back filling was accepted land management practice for years, never mind that it merely made it more likely all those heavy metals would seep into the groundwater.

TXU acknowledges it keeps 314,400 tons of coal waste at the Sandow power plant south of Rockdale. It's a toxic brew that includes about 500 tons of heavy metals. Indeed, the Sandow power plant in Rockdale was ranked #31 of the top 100 waste producer coal plants by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005.

Further, many researchers contend that the toxic waste from the typical coal-fired power plant is more radioactive than a typical nuclear plant because the toxins are so heavily concentrated and the waste is regarded as simple "solid waste" by regulatory agencies.

So, unlike the poor folks in Tennessee, those of us here in Milam County are not likely to experience rupturing holding ponds that might spew hundreds of thousands of gallons of stuff all over the country side. It's already in our groundwater!

But, no ... it's all perfectly safe. No reason to worry, no reason for more oversight, right?

Distance to dictatorship

The other night, my cousin and I talked about Tehran and Tiananmen and other instances of somewhat spontaneous displays of mass democratic thought. We talked about the governmental response.

Jon praised the Chinese for its patience ... I countered that one wishes the Chinese government had used water canon rather than the more destructive automatic weapons to put down the students ... he retorted that our government did the same thing, in Chicago, at Kent State ...

This morning, while sitting on my front porch, I read in the Week in Review section of my Sunday NYT this chilling composite....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/weekinreview/28savage.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=nixon%20tapes&st=cse

Nixon was a famous paranoid. Might he have been closer to suspending the Constitution than we ever suspected? How close to it might his protege, Dick Chenney, have come had our anti-Iraqi-war movement been more effective?