Risky Fishing
Spring is finally here, and people across Illinois are thinking of getting outside. Certainly one of the best ways to enjoy the outdoors is fishing - a perfect excuse to spend a morning or an afternoon on a lake or a riverbank with your family, friends, or in the quiet of nature. It's not surprising that there are 700,000 fishing licenses issued each year in Illinois.
Unfortunately, those anglers may be getting more than just a relaxing day on the water when they fish Illinois. If they are bringing their catch home for dinner, they may be putting their family's health at risk by connecting dirty coal plant smokestacks to their kids' nervous systems.
Midlothian Reservoir in Cook County's Forest Preserves is a "hotspot" for mercury pollution, carrying a special warning for women of child-bearing age.
A new report issued today by Illinois Public Interest Research Group examines two decades of fish tissue sampling data in Illinois and reports that the health threat posed by mercury-contaminated fish is a statewide phenomenon. Waters as diverse as Lake Michigan, a city park lagoon, the Rock River, Kinkaid Lake, or suburban streams like the DuPage River all are home to fish that carry dangerous amounts of mercury.
According to Illinois EPA, 70% of Illinois' mercury pollution comes from coal-burning power plants. Other states that have acted to cut their mercury emissions have seen mercury levels in fish drop substantially in less than a decade.
Fishing is still a great way to spend a beautiful spring day. Let's make sure it's not a health risk by cleaning up our coal plants.
Illinois EPA estimates that this coal plant in Romeoville put out 459 pounds of mercury pollution in 2004.
Originally posted at http://illinoissierraclub.blogspot.com/
10 comments:
Jack,
You never responded to the Illinios State Water Survey report that the notion this Hg comes from Coal Plants is hokum,
The hypothesis that most Hg in Illinois and the USA soils is of anthropogenic origin is rejected. Where as Hg is a trace element --its concentation is low compared to that of other Earth elements-- Hg concentrations and contents of Illinois and USA soils are too great to be accounted for by atmospheric anthropogenic Hg deposition. This finding does not mean that atmospheric Hg pollution does not contribute to environmental Hg. Nor does it mean that there are situations where conditionss are such that most Hg does come from anthropogenic atmospheric deposition. It does indicate, however, that because environmentally significant amounts of natural Hg are generally found in soils, research is needed to investigate the mobility and fate of natural and anthropogenic Hg in terrestrail and aquatic environments.
Somewhere you said you folks were going to study the study from Blagojevich's State Water Survey.
We're waiting.
Bill,
If more study is needed, how can you be so sure the claims are "hokum"? The passage you quote itself says,
This finding does not mean that atmospheric Hg pollution does not contribute to environmental Hg. Nor does it mean that there are situations where conditionss are such that most Hg does come from anthropogenic atmospheric deposition.
In addition, even if in many cases mercury pollution is due to "natural" sources, that doesn't negate the seriousness of the health concerns that have come to light.
And more attention to pollution is always a good thing anyway.
I don't like to see science used to pollute public policy or debate.
If more research and debate is needed, the Sierra Club should have not posted perhapes.
I would be interested to see the data behind the drop in Mercury levels in fish after enacting Mercury reductions.
If that data proves true then the ISWS report is meaningless. If enacting HG reductions result in lower fish levels then it is irrelevant whether the majority of HG pollution is natural or man-made.
Baar seems like an industry lobbyist.
To suggest that no one should bring these issues to light or report on what is only common sense (that coal plants contribute to mercury pollution as well as being massively polluting over time) until "conclusive" studies are issued is ridiculous.
There will never be any "conclusive" reports on anything to do with corporate pollution. Why? Because corporations will find and pay off scientists to come up with a "study" to contradict any study which reveals the level their pollution is diminishing all our lives.
If the Sierra club or anyone else cites a valid study, the corporatists will just trot out their version, and real science is effectively thwarted.
Sorry it bugs you that people actually notice pollution, Baar. I know you wish everyone would just shut up and look the other way.
If the Hg in the water we consume isn't coming from the coal plants, doesn't it make sense to find the source and remediate that?
Instead of spending money to fix something that isn't contributing to the problem (not to mention make political hay with it).
If I did have some lobbyist money maybe I could fund some sensible work here, but somehow I don't think that's the Sierra Clubs agenda.
My family are members by the way and must kick in something to them...I should send a note with the next check.
Bill, I wonder just how many studies you've actually read concerning the sources of mercury deposited in lakes and rivers? Are you interested in trying to get to the bottom of the problem, or simply trying to yank the Sierra Club's chain? I suspect the latter.
I've seen studies indicating that when industrial sources reduce mercury emissions, there is a corresponding reduction in mercury levels nearby. I suspect mercury comes from both local and global sources and that the contributions will vary, depending on where you sample.
I'd like more definitive answers on the causes of mercury contamination, but I don't think we can wait much longer. If we want to continue to rely on coal, we need to clean up the existing industrial sources and utilize cleaner combustion technologies. The older, higher emitting power plants should have been replaced years ago.
Sorry I haven't been paying closer attention to my post.
Bill, I asked an expert for his opinion on the ISWS paper, and here is their response:
"The paper shows a very limited understanding of mercury cycling on the part of the authors. The central claim in the paper is that current rates of
atmospheric deposition (regardless of how much is anthropogenic vs. natural) are small compared to mercury burdens in soils; the implication is that
broader environmental contamination with anthropogenic mercury is of minor
concern. A few problems with their paper:
* They imply that the significant mass of mercury in soils is the central issue, and that most Hg cycling researchers assume that atmospheric deposition is the major contributor of mercury to soils. This is not the case. Most cycling researchers say that for most ecosystems, air deposition of mercury is the major source of mercury entering water bodies, not that
amount of air deposited mercury over a short period (e.g. a few years) is greater than the total mercury burden in soils. Mercury (and other elements)
in soils accumulate over the years of accumulation of soils, and the mercury can originate with the soil particle (e.g. as mineral matter) or be transported to the soil (e.g. via atmospheric deposition, and having been
mobilized by either natural or anthropogenic processes).
* The watershed modeling in the EPA Mercury Study Report to Congress (Vol. III) appears to involve use of a default soil thickness of 1 cm (i.e. surface soils); Krug and Winstanley do their calculations with either
topsoil or entire soil column (e.g. 20 cm in the former case).
* They ignore almost entirely (except for mention in the very last sentence) the issue of the mobility of soil mercury. Much of the mercury in soil is inorganic mercury compounds complexed with organic anions * these tend to not be very soluble, and are thus not transported readily from soils. As noted by EPA in the Mercury Study Report to Congress (Vol. III) "Currently,
the atmospheric input of mercury to soil is thought to exceed greatly the amount leached from soil, and the amount of mercury partitioning to runoff is considered to be a small fraction of the amount of mercury stored in soil." Also, mercury deposited on soils from air deposition would be expected to behave differently from mercury bound in soil mineral matter.
* They ignore the wide variations in mercury levels in rocks and soils on the Earth * i.e., some areas are naturally enriched (which is the reason
that mercury is not mined just anywhere).
* They do not discuss issues of soil accumulation and erosion, or Hg concentrations as a function of several soil properties (e.g. variation with depth, particle size, organic matter content), nor discuss significant
research that has been done on forest soils.
* They fail to acknowledge fully the numerous studies on dated sediment cores that indicate substantial increases in mercury deposition (as tracked
in lake sediments, and to a lesser extent peat and ice cores) through the industrial era (i.e., the last 500 years or so). If anthropogenic activities had not significantly altered the mercury cycle, the sediments would not
have responded in this way * i.e., the higher mercury concentrations would not generally be in the more recent sediments (or peat layers, etc.), as in
fact they are found. (This is independent of methylation issues * most of the mercury in lake sediments is inorganic, not methylmercury).
* They have no response to rigorous global mass balance efforts (e.g. Mason and Sheu, 2002; Lamborg et al., 2002) indicating the importance of
anthropogenic mercury in the global cycle.
* Research is still occurring (including in the METAALICUS study) on the extent to which mercury atmospherically-deposited to soils is transported to
water bodies. Preliminary results in the METAALICUS study indicated that most of the mercury added quickly became bound to soils (in contrast to mercury added directly to the lake, which is more readily methylated), but longer term assessments will be needed to determine how that mercury responds compared to older mercury already in the soils.
I assume that if they had submitted it to a journal that more regularly publishes mercury cycling papers, reviewers would have caught the numerous
problems with the paper."
Gish -
Here's a link to a Boston Globe story on the most recent study out of Massachusetts, which found that just 7 years after new mercury controls on incinerators (the major mercury source there, apparently), mercury levels in fish dropped 32%.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/03/mercury_down_32_in_fish_near_mass_incinerators/
Jack
Jack-
So, the recent Massachussetts study would indicate that reductions in man-made HG have a direct and significant impact on HG levels in fish. This result is independent of the levels of naturally occuring HG that may be in the environment.
Given this, the study from the ISWS,even if true, is marginalized. Therefore it should be a non-issue to Bill's argument.
Post a Comment