... Vapors over vapors
Kudos to JunkScience.com 's Steve Milloy for debunking suspect blame-mankind research behind demonization of humanity's mercury emissions.
A new Harvard University study links such emissions with increasing levels of methylmercury -- "inorganic" smokestack and tailpipe mercury in the food chain -- and reproductive problems in black-footed albatrosses over the last 140 years.
But as Mr. Milloy points out, the study is manifestly flawed.
Its sample -- just eight birds' feathers -- is too small for reliable conclusions. And those feathers showed accumulation rising for methylmercury and decreasing for inorganic mercury.
Other data show the birds' numbers more than tripled from 1923 to 2005 -- while mercury emissions rose. And the Harvard researchers relied on prior studies of avian methylmercury levels and reproductive problems that leapt -- without substantiation -- from correlation to causation.
Nature accounts for about 70 percent of worldwide mercury emissions, coal-fired U.S. power plants for only about 1 percent. Yet Milloy expects "the EPA to nevertheless hang the mercury albatross around their necks."
Whether it targets mercury or carbon dioxide, blame-mankind policy is based on worthless "science" -- and just as economically destructive.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.