I thought some of you might find this website helpful. If you click on your State and County it will reveal what heavy metal measurements (Including Mercury) have been in your area in the U.S.

http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geochem/doc/averages/hg/usa.html


SomedaySoon

Thank you!

I've been searching for this data recently.

You're welcome, Russ. I was going to say "I hope you enjoy it," but thought better of saying that. The information is really rather disturbing -- well for my area of the U.S. it appears to be.

SomedaySoon (Sharon)

For the first time in 5 years, and after having a dramatic recovery from mercury toxicity from amalgams in 2000, I am mildly experiencing some old symptoms again.

After feeling strongly that I am being exposied to mercury from some unknown source, and then after performing some research, I discovered that I live about 1 mile downwind of a coal-buring powerplant that pumps about 750 pounds of mercury into the air each year.

I am renting a mercury vapor meter soon to try to find out exactly what the amounts are, so I have also been looking for this type of information to compare my notes with. When I find out, I will post the results on this forum.

Perhaps it's time to move. Thanks again.

This article might be of some interest to you Russ:

EPA holds course on utility mercury rules

May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Wednesday reaffirmed contentious rules that aim to cut toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities by 70 percent by 2018 by letting plants swap pollution rights.

Some 14 states including New York and California had asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the rules the agency unveiled in March 2005, along with five environmental groups. EPA essentially kept its original proposal intact.

"The mandatory declining caps, coupled with significant penalties for noncompliance, will ensure that mercury reduction requirements are achieved and sustained in a cost-effective manner," the agency said in a statement.

The utility industry and environmental groups have clashed over the EPA plan to limit emissions of mercury, which contaminates water and fish and has been linked to neurological disorders in young children.

Regulators say the new program should cut mercury emissions by 70 percent by 2018 through a cap-and-trade system.

But environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council predict a court challenge to the regulations which they maintain are too lenient on power generators.

The U.S. Supreme Court is already weighing a challenge to another related EPA proposal that would determine utilities' ability to overhaul aging coal-fired power plants without installing costly emission-reduction equipment.

The nation's 1,100 coal-burning units now emit about 48 tons of mercury each year, the largest unregulated U.S. source. The new rule sets the cap at 38 tons per year by 2010 and 15 tons per year in 2018.

However, actual emissions could remain much higher for many more years because of emissions credits that the EPA will let utilities "bank" from previous years when they reduce more than required, environmental groups said.

Opponents wanted plant-specific caps and said the mercury rules give utilities a free pass because the cap-and-trade system could lead to "hot spots," or higher mercury deposition around some plants.

"This is just really pathetic," said John Walke at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The agency refuses to respond to any of the significant criticisms."

The EPA had the power to order utilities to cut emissions by 90 percent by 2008 because of existing "activated carbon injection" technology, but took an industry-friendly tack, Walke said.

Utilities say the cap-and-trade system gives them flexibility to reduce emissions without spurring a switch to natural gas, which is cleaner but more expensive than coal.

"A cap-and-trade program to cut emissions ... will guarantee large pollution reductions without imposing huge additional costs on consumers," said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which lobbies for big U.S. utilities.

Atlanta-based Southern Co., which operates a large fleet of coal-burning plants, said it supports the rule, and will be able to cut emissions of mercury and two other pollutants at its plants by up to 70 percent at a cost of about $6 billion over the next 10 years.

In an interview, Southern Chief Executive Officer David Ratcliffe said the new rules are "the right approach," even though the mercury issue is "more emotional than real in terms of substance."

******************

If you go to the EPA website and do a search for Mercury Regulations and the Clean Air Act of 1990, you might find more information that is specific to the utility plant near you.

I think mercury is unregulated at the moment, but it's slotted to be addressed. If you look at the Clean Air Act of 1990 you can probably find the precise language addressing mercury (and other emissions).

Also, I thought I heard that a utility company up there (not sure if it's yours -- its NIPA) was planning to replace i's aging power plant with a new one. The new plant would be much cleaner -- (i.e., cleaner emissions). But environmentalists are fighting it for some reason. ANyway, I offer it in case you want to explore the issue further.


SomedaySOon

Thanks for the info.

The part of the equasion that is consistently left unconsidered when pondering these types of laws is the cost of health care that mercury causes.

My local power plant emits 720 pounds of mercury into the air each year. Electricity is cheap but the cost—both personal and financial—to the people who have a myriad of mercury-related diseases is inexcusable. Sinced I've moved here, I've felt the effects of the mercury myself and have since purchased water and ail filtration as countermeasures.

I moved here about 3 years ago and am amazed at the number of sick people. Now I know why.