Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.
You are assuming that underwater volcanic vents emit mercury that actually have a route or way to get from the bottom of the ocean floor, in the middle of each ocean, to somewhere near the surface and closer to the shores of continents. This is a stretch, and am willing to bet that chemical process prevent the mercury from migrating upwards and outwards and affecting our marine food supply. I'm a vegan and consider the over-fishing of our seas a joke as it is, since we are depleting our own food supply, and have resorted to fish farming which is just as cruel as factory farms, and by the way, fish do feel pain.
Puhleeze. The Mercury is dissolved in water that is something like 500 degrees F. Warm water rises. It's inconceivable that the water from thermal vents would not "migrate upwards." What "chemical processes" could possibly prevent it?
Face it: You've been pawned.
eep sea vent chemistry diagram.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.
Mercury from Vocanoes
ooops....looks like they need to pull that giant cork out of Joe Bidens ass (and deal with the consequences and use it to stop up Kilauea. That or pass a law so that it won't spit out any mercury.
What a flaming joke.
Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.
Mercury from Vocanoes
ooops....looks like they need to pull that giant cork out of Joe Bidens ass (and deal with the consequences and use it to stop up Kilauea. That or pass a law so that it won't spit out any mercury.
What a flaming joke.
You're right, that was a flaming joke. No one is disputing the presence of significant natural inputs of mercury, but in what way does mercury from a volcano find its way to us? Volcanoes are not constant phenomena, and are very localized, and most people do not live near them. Coal fired power plants on the other hand, are constantly working, and relatively high in number, and are located close to and amongst living populations of people, yet you dumb asses ignore these common sense attributes of this human sources of mercury and continue to think that volcanoes somehow validate our own emissions of mercury. Its funny how in this instance, you worship mother earth, yet it all others, you vow to destroy her for a few jobs and an increase in the stock market.
You are vastly oversimplifying the concept of heat convection currents in ocean water. The hot water from deep-ocean hydrothermal vents does not simply rise and continue to rise until it reaches the surfaces in a linear-fashion, bringing with with it mercury. The ocean water is far too cold, and cools the hydrothermal water quickly as it rises sufficiently to prevent it from directly reaching the surface. The hot water does not bring the mercury nearly high enough to reach any fish that we catch as humans. Upwelling of warm water occurs largely from other sources and is not simply dictated by hydrothermal vents.
As shown here: Fileeep sea vent chemistry diagram.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia on human produced mercury input:
Natural sources, such as volcanoes, are responsible for approximately half of atmospheric mercury emissions. The human-generated half can be divided into the following estimated percentages:[78][79][80]
65% from stationary combustion, of which coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source (40% of U.S. mercury emissions in 1999). This includes power plants fueled with gas where the mercury has not been removed. Emissions from coal combustion are between one and two orders of magnitude higher than emissions from oil combustion, depending on the country.[78]
11% from gold production. The three largest point sources for mercury emissions in the U.S. are the three largest gold mines. Hydrogeochemical release of mercury from gold-mine tailings has been accounted as a significant source of atmospheric mercury in eastern Canada.[81]
6.8% from non-ferrous metal production, typically smelters.
6.4% from cement production.
3.0% from waste disposal, including municipal and hazardous waste, crematoria, and sewage sludge incineration. This is a significant underestimate due to limited information, and is likely to be off by a factor of two to five.
3.0% from caustic soda production.
1.4% from pig iron and steel production.
1.1% from mercury production, mainly for batteries.
2.0% from other sources.
This means, we are producing TWICE as much naturally than should be in our environment. To say this is not significant, would be dishonest.
File:Mercury fremont ice core.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.
Mercury from Vocanoes
ooops....looks like they need to pull that giant cork out of Joe Bidens ass (and deal with the consequences and use it to stop up Kilauea. That or pass a law so that it won't spit out any mercury.
What a flaming joke.
You're right, that was a flaming joke. No one is disputing the presence of significant natural inputs of mercury, but in what way does mercury from a volcano find its way to us? Volcanoes are not constant phenomena, and are very localized, and most people do not live near them. Coal fired power plants on the other hand, are constantly working, and relatively high in number, and are located close to and amongst living populations of people, yet you dumb asses ignore these common sense attributes of this human sources of mercury and continue to think that volcanoes somehow validate our own emissions of mercury. Its funny how in this instance, you worship mother earth, yet it all others, you vow to destroy her for a few jobs and an increase in the stock market.
You are vastly oversimplifying the concept of heat convection currents in ocean water. The hot water from deep-ocean hydrothermal vents does not simply rise and continue to rise until it reaches the surfaces in a linear-fashion, bringing with with it mercury. The ocean water is far too cold, and cools the hydrothermal water quickly as it rises sufficiently to prevent it from directly reaching the surface. The hot water does not bring the mercury nearly high enough to reach any fish that we catch as humans. Upwelling of warm water occurs largely from other sources and is not simply dictated by hydrothermal vents.
As shown here: File
Hey, that's a cute diagram, and all, but it's in Wikipedia. When you use Wikipedia as an authoritative source, you only make yourself look foolish. Furthermore, there is no source mentioned for your cute picture. There are no numbers, no explanation and no source.
Yeah, that's credible.
NOT!
Your theory that undersea vents could spew out 10,000 tons of mercury every year and that none of it would get mixed into the ocean water is too absurd for words.
Wikipedia on human produced mercury input:
Natural sources, such as volcanoes, are responsible for approximately half of atmospheric mercury emissions. The human-generated half can be divided into the following estimated percentages:[78][79][80]
65% from stationary combustion, of which coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source (40% of U.S. mercury emissions in 1999). This includes power plants fueled with gas where the mercury has not been removed. Emissions from coal combustion are between one and two orders of magnitude higher than emissions from oil combustion, depending on the country.[78]
11% from gold production. The three largest point sources for mercury emissions in the U.S. are the three largest gold mines. Hydrogeochemical release of mercury from gold-mine tailings has been accounted as a significant source of atmospheric mercury in eastern Canada.[81]
6.8% from non-ferrous metal production, typically smelters.
6.4% from cement production.
3.0% from waste disposal, including municipal and hazardous waste, crematoria, and sewage sludge incineration. This is a significant underestimate due to limited information, and is likely to be off by a factor of two to five.
3.0% from caustic soda production.
1.4% from pig iron and steel production.
1.1% from mercury production, mainly for batteries.
2.0% from other sources.
This means, we are producing TWICE as much naturally than should be in our environment. To say this is not significant, would be dishonest.
File:Mercury fremont ice core.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When you say WE produce twice as much, you really mean China. Our coal fired power plants only produce 44 tons of Mercury each year. China's produce 400 tons of Mercury every year.
Also, what does "twice as much as we should" mean? Who determined how much we should produce?
As another poster pointed out, a single volcano in Hawaii pumps out 270 tons of Mercury every year.
The bottom line is that totally eliminating all Mercury from coal fired power plants won't amount to a fart in the wind in terms of mercury ingestion for Americans.
If the EPA was genuinely concerned about Mercury exposure, it would ban the consumption of fish, because that is the source of 99% of all the Mercury Americans are exposed to, but we all know they are never going to do that. Eco-fascists like you are the last people who are going to call for banning the consumption of fish.
The EPA campaign against coal fire power plants is a huge fraud. Lisa Jackson should be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
So the west coast has that many fewer coal plants? Is Florida covered in coal fired plants?Emissions from American coal plants account for 44 tons of mercury / year. Emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes and undersea vents total about 10,000 tons /year.
Your claim is pure horseshit.
If you contention that antropogenic mercury wasn't happening was true, if mercury pollution was merely the problem of worldwide vocanic activity, the EAST coast of the USA, wouldn't have pollution levels higher than the rest of the nation.
Note the higher incidence of mercury pollution in the east coast?
That mostly from Mid western COAL-FIRED PLANTS, lad.
The jet stream naturally takes the pollution east where it settles onto the east coast.
Enjoy the fishing here in Maine but don't eat the fish!
Seems to me a lot of the pollution have little to do with the placement of plants and more the geology of the areas. It seems to, in most cases follow heavy geologic deposits of certain types of resources. The UP, MN Arrowhead and Northern WI are loaded with metal. The Mississippi delta is getting runoff from the Ohio and Missouri. What about the Eastern plains and Piedmont?
This map is not conclusive proof that coal plants are problems or you'd see pollution footprints far clearer. And don't forget, nature produces far more mercury pollution than man's activity.
You are vastly oversimplifying the concept of heat convection currents in ocean water. The hot water from deep-ocean hydrothermal vents does not simply rise and continue to rise until it reaches the surfaces in a linear-fashion, bringing with with it mercury. The ocean water is far too cold, and cools the hydrothermal water quickly as it rises sufficiently to prevent it from directly reaching the surface. The hot water does not bring the mercury nearly high enough to reach any fish that we catch as humans. Upwelling of warm water occurs largely from other sources and is not simply dictated by hydrothermal vents.
As shown here: File
Hey, that's a cute diagram, and all, but it's in Wikipedia. When you use Wikipedia as an authoritative source, you only make yourself look foolish. Furthermore, there is no source mentioned for your cute picture. There are no numbers, no explanation and no source.
Yeah, that's credible.
NOT!
Your theory that undersea vents could spew out 10,000 tons of mercury every year and that none of it would get mixed into the ocean water is too absurd for words.
Wikipedia on human produced mercury input:
Natural sources, such as volcanoes, are responsible for approximately half of atmospheric mercury emissions. The human-generated half can be divided into the following estimated percentages:[78][79][80]
65% from stationary combustion, of which coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source (40% of U.S. mercury emissions in 1999). This includes power plants fueled with gas where the mercury has not been removed. Emissions from coal combustion are between one and two orders of magnitude higher than emissions from oil combustion, depending on the country.[78]
11% from gold production. The three largest point sources for mercury emissions in the U.S. are the three largest gold mines. Hydrogeochemical release of mercury from gold-mine tailings has been accounted as a significant source of atmospheric mercury in eastern Canada.[81]
6.8% from non-ferrous metal production, typically smelters.
6.4% from cement production.
3.0% from waste disposal, including municipal and hazardous waste, crematoria, and sewage sludge incineration. This is a significant underestimate due to limited information, and is likely to be off by a factor of two to five.
3.0% from caustic soda production.
1.4% from pig iron and steel production.
1.1% from mercury production, mainly for batteries.
2.0% from other sources.
This means, we are producing TWICE as much naturally than should be in our environment. To say this is not significant, would be dishonest.
File:Mercury fremont ice core.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When you say WE produce twice as much, you really mean China. Our coal fired power plants only produce 44 tons of Mercury each year. China's produce 400 tons of Mercury every year.
Also, what does "twice as much as we should" mean? Who determined how much we should produce?
As another poster pointed out, a single volcano in Hawaii pumps out 270 tons of Mercury every year.
The bottom line is that totally eliminating all Mercury from coal fired power plants won't amount to a fart in the wind in terms of mercury ingestion for Americans.
If the EPA was genuinely concerned about Mercury exposure, it would ban the consumption of fish, because that is the source of 99% of all the Mercury Americans are exposed to, but we all know they are never going to do that. Eco-fascists like you are the last people who are going to call for banning the consumption of fish.
The EPA campaign against coal fire power plants is a huge fraud. Lisa Jackson should be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
Why would an 'eco-fascist' be against banning the consumption of fish? This would be something I am for as an eco-fascist. funny name. that would make you an industrio-fascist? willing to shit all over the earth that created you, killing yourself in the process. that's brains right there.
Also, you deny the credibiliy of wikipedia, which is basically an amalgam of other sources worldwide. You have no zero basis on which to attack wikipedia's credibility except that it is damaging to your arguement. In other words, you simply wish it weren't true, and pretend that it isn't.
The source of this diagram, which you claim doesn't exist, was listed right on the page, if you had looked a little further down. Here it is:
USGS Fact Sheet FS-051-02
"Significance of findings: This study, which represents the first effort to estimate rates of atmospheric mercury deposition using ice cores from mid-latitude regions, enabled scientists to clearly discern differences in natural and anthropogenic mercury sources over time. Scientists found that the amount of mercury deposited on the North American continent from atmospheric sources increased significantly during industrialization. In addition, analysis of ice cores indicated a dramatic decrease in atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 15-20 years, reflecting perhaps potential effects of the Clean Air Act and other management practices to reduce emissions. Information of this kind is necessary for establishing baseline levels of mercury in the environment, thereby providing crucial information for scientifically defensible resource-management, policy, and regulatory decisions being made now and in the future."
You're reaction and inability to see this for what it is, is evidence that when you don't want to see something, you won't.
He then uses quotes from the article to form his whole argument. And if you want to know more about the author of the OP article just google Jim Hoft and see what kind of whack job that Bripat takes as the proponent of gospel truth. 
Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
Again, with what are you going to replace the 49% of electricity generated by burning coal?Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
So replace old, cheap, and dependable with unproven and expensive for political ideology?Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
So replace old, cheap, and dependable with unproven and expensive for political ideology?Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
Bad plan.
Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
Wood...that is so Neandrethal/Cromagon...Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
That has to be the dumbest argument ever posted in this forum.
Should we outlaw gas stoves because fire is 6000 year old technology?
Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
That has to be the dumbest argument ever posted in this forum.
Should we outlaw gas stoves because fire is 6000 year old technology?
cheap, but still 3 times more expensive than coal.So replace old, cheap, and dependable with unproven and expensive for political ideology?Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
Bad plan.
Natural gas is cheap.
Asks the neanderthal.Time to move on, people. Coal is 19th century technology.
That has to be the dumbest argument ever posted in this forum.
Should we outlaw gas stoves because fire is 6000 year old technology?
Fire is technology?
